lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [RFC] ARM DMA mapping TODO, v1
From
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:29:30 +0100
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 15:06 +0100, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 10:52:25 +0100
> > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, we end up with different DMA ops per device via dev_archdata.
> >
> > Several architectures already do. What's wrong with the approach for
> > arm?
>
> Nothing wrong IMHO but it depends on how you group the DMA ops as it may
> not be feasible to have all the combinations dmabounce/iommu/coherency
> combinations. I think the main combinations would be:
>
> 1. standard (no-iommu) + non-coherent
> 2. standard (no-iommu) + coherent
> 3. iommu + non-coherent
> 4. iommu + coherent
> 5. dmabounce + non-coherent
> 6. dmabounce + coherent
>
> I think dmabounce and iommu can be exclusive (unless the iommu cannot
> access the whole RAM). If that's the case, we can have three type of DMA
> ops:
>
> 1. standard
> 2. iommu
> 3. dmabounce
>
> with an additional flag via dev_archdata for cache coherency level (a
> device may be able to snoop the L1 or L2 cache etc.)

Sounds nothing wrong to me too. I like to see arm people to switch
from dmabounce to swiotlb though.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-27 16:37    [W:0.241 / U:0.260 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site