[lkml]   [2009]   [May]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] asm-generic: add a dma-mapping.h file
    On Fri, 22 May 2009 17:05:53 +0200
    Arnd Bergmann <> wrote:

    > On Friday 22 May 2009, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
    > > I'm not sure. And only mips internally uses CONFIG_DMA_COHERENT.
    > >
    > > The reason why many architectures need architecture-specific
    > > alloc_coherent() is not about coherent or not.
    > >
    > > I like a new helper header file having only generic functions without
    > > any ifdef.
    > Ok, fair enough. Fixing dma_alloc_coherent to handle
    > coherent_dma_mask and debug_dma correctly would also
    > make it even bigger, and it was already doing more than
    > you'd want from a commonly used inline function.
    > It may be useful to put it into kernel/dma-coherent.c
    > under an #ifdef, but I'll leave this one alone for now.

    Adding #ifdef into kernel/dma-coherent.c is ugly.

    > I'll leave dma_alloc_coherent and dma_free_coherent
    > as extern declarations then, and leave out the
    > simple dma_coherent_dev() and dma_cache_sync() that
    > all architectures would need to override.

    Right, needs to leave the functions that architectures need to

    > dma_get_cache_alignment() is still less generic than
    > the other functions, as this is still architecture
    > specific. Should I leave that out as well then?

    Yes, I think that only adding generic functions is a better
    approach. Overriding with #ifdef is really ugly.

    > One more idea I had was to rename all the functions in
    > this file from dma_* to dma_linear_*. This would mean
    > that all architectures using it would still need to
    > do something like #define dma_map_sg dma_linear_map_sg
    > for each function they want to use but can easily chose
    > to provide their own ones for those they need different.
    > It might also help architectures that work with dma_ops,
    > which could then define their own
    > struct dma_ops dma_ops_linear = {
    > .map_single = dma_linear_map_single,
    > .map_sg = dma_linear_map_sg,
    > ...
    > };

    To me, looks like this just makes things complicated needlessly. But
    I'm not in a position to ACK or NACK this. it's better to ask
    architecture maintainers.

    > Would you prefer me to do it this way, or just keep the
    > standard function names as in the current patch?

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-05-26 06:43    [W:0.022 / U:13.720 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site