Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers

On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 16:22 +0000, Russell King wrote:
> The zero DMA address is absolutely and totally valid.  It might not
> correspond with physical address zero on platforms.
> 
> Also, DMA address zero is not the same as NULL. 

This isn't actually "DMA address" in that context -- it's the I/O port
number at which the controller's BM-DMA control registers reside. But
still it can be zero.

-- 
dwmw2

-
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/

References:
- [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
  - From: Alan <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
  - From: David Woodhouse <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
  - From: Jeff Garzik <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
  - From: Russell King <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/6] Tunable structure and registration routines
Next by Date: Re: [RFC][PATCH 4/6] min and max kobjects
Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] libata-sff: Don't call bmdma_stop on non DMA capable controllers
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[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]