Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 13/18] ARM: LPAE: ensure dma_addr_t is the same size as phys_addr_t | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Date | Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:31:13 +0100 |
| |
On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 13:01 +0100, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:32:09 +0100 > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:08 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Monday 25 October 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > > > > > > > Now that phys_addr_t can be 64-bit on ARM, we must ensure that dma_addr_t > > > > is sufficiently large to hold physical addresses. > > > > > > > > This patch uses the types.h implementation in asm-generic to define the > > > > dma_addr_t type as the same width as phys_addr_t. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > > > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> > > > > > > This patch will become obsolete once the "unify dma_addr_t typedef" > > > series from Fujita Tomonori is upstream, you will instead have to set > > > CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT. > > > > Yes, I know this and it's on my list to fix once I update the patches to > > 2.6.37-rc1. > > This patch also conflicts with the patchset removing dma64_addr_t (you > really don't need dma64_addr_t): > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=128685377524976&w=2 > > Both in -mm and I think Andrew will merge both > CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT and dma64_addr_t patchset. > > So how about dropping this patch and folding the following into your > 18th patch. Then Andrew will not get the conflict and -rc1 works fine > for you.
Yes, that's the plan, I was just waiting for -rc1 to rebase my patches (given the loooong review process on the ARM list, I don't expect the LPAE patches to be merged any time soon :)).
Thanks,
Catalin
| |