On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:56:08AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:22:18PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > NAK
> > >
> > > We have generic devices and generic DMA mapping. libata already uses
> > > the generic stuff. Now fix the platform...
> >
> > Nice theory but your generic helpers rely on the map functions working
> > even for generic hardware that doesn't need them, so at the very least
> > there is some clean up required.
>
> Sure there is some clean up needed -- on the arch side.
>
> Even !PCI dma_xxx wrappers that do nothing more than return a dma
> mapping error are a valid platform implementation.
If you don't have DMA capabilities, does libata still need ->pad and
->pad_dma set?
I had a problem where a pata_platform device which wasn't DMA capable
failed to initialise because we quite rightfully made dma_alloc_coherent()
fail (due to the DMA masks not being set.)
It seems odd that libata requires DMA memory for non-DMA capable devices...
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
-
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]
