On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 05:36:43PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > +static int __init pci_iommu_init(void)
> > +{
> > + int rc = 0;
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_GART_IOMMU
> > + rc = gart_iommu_init();
> > + if (!rc) /* success? */
> > + return 0;
> > +#endif
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CALGARY_IOMMU
> > + rc = calgary_iommu_init();
> > +#endif
>
> This is weird. Normally I would expect you to detect the calgary thing first
> and only then run the gart_iommu detection if not found. Why this
> order?
Seniority? :-) these are mutually exclusive, really, so we didn't
consider it important which runs "first".
> Fixing that would also not require adding the additional hacks to gart iommu
> you added.
We'll still need it at least to stop swiotlb from kicking in in
pci_swiotlb_init if we detected either gart or Calgary.
Cheers,
Muli
--
Muli Ben-Yehuda
http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
