lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [linux-usb-devel] Re: SLAB vs. pci_alloc_xxx in usb-uhci patch [RFC: API]
> >  > Do lots of drivers need the reverse mapping? It wasn't on my todo list
> > > yet.
> >
> > I am against any API which provides this. It can be extremely
> > expensive to do this on some architectures,

The implementation I posted needed no architecture-specific
knowledge. If cost is the issue, fine -- this makes it finite,
(not infinite), and some drivers can eliminate that cost.


> > and since the rest
> > of the PCI dma API does not provide such an interface neither
> > should the pool routines.
>
> The API I hacked together for uhci.c didn't have this.

But it didn't handle the OHCI done-list processing, and we've heard
a lot more about pci_*_consistent being needed with OHCI than
with UHCI; it's more common on non-Intel architectures.

Given that some hardware must return the dma addresses, why
should it be a good thing to have an API that doesn't expose
the notion of a reverse mapping? At this level -- not the lower
level code touching hardware PTEs.

- Dave


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:29    [W:0.086 / U:1.644 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site