lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: should struct device.dma_mask still be a pointer?
From
> IMHO it's strange that struct device.dma_mask is a pointer instead of a
> plain u64. The reason this was done back then is described in
> 8ab1bc19e974fdebe76c065fe444979c84ba2f74[1]:
>
> Attached is a patch which moves dma_mask into struct device and cleans up the
> scsi mid-layer to use it (instead of using struct pci_dev). The advantage to
> doing this is probably most apparent on non-pci bus architectures where
> currently you have to construct a fake pci_dev just so you can get the bounce
> buffers to work correctly.
>
> The patch tries to perturb the minimum amount of code, so dma_mask in struct
> device is simply a pointer to the one in pci_dev. However, it will make it
> easy for me now to add generic device to MCA without having to go the fake pci
> route.

Yeah, that's a strange design. As the commit log said, it's due to the
historical reason. We invented the pci dma model first then moved to
the generic dma model.


> As I work on such a non-pci bus architecture it's still ugly that this
> is a pointer because I have to allocate extra memory for that.

The popular trick to avoid allocating the extra memory for that is:

device.dma_mask = &device.coherent_dma_mask;


> Is there a reason not to get rid of struct pci_dev.dma_mask and use
> struct pci_dev.dev.dma_mask instead? (Well apart from the needed
> effort of course.)
>
> If not, the following would be needed:
>
> - remove struct pci.dma_mask
> - make struct device.dma_mask an u64 (instead of u64*)
> - substitue var.dma_mask by var.dev.dma_mask for all
> struct pci_dev var
> - substitue var.dma_mask by &(var.dma_mask) for all
> struct device var
>
> and note that there are statically initialized struct device (and maybe
> struct pci_dev?) that need fixing, too. (e.g.
> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-mx2/devices.c;h=a0aeb8a4adc19ef419a0a045ad3b882131597106;hb=HEAD#l265
> )

That's exactly the perturbation that the commit log refers to.

We need to modify all the struct device at a time. We could, however,
I don't think that it's worth doing. Little gain.


> Additionally this could be done for struct device.dma_parms.

Yeah, we should have all the dma parameters in dma_parms.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-07-01 03:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans