lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mmc: dw_mmc: use resource_size_t to store physical address
From
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 18:17:32 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:29:19 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>
>> >> For me it clearly looks like a platform (HW / SW) configuration issue.
>> >
>> > I think some people have argued in the past that we should always use
>> > the same type for dma_addr_t, resource_size_t and phys_addr_t. That
>> > would certainly fix the problem you describe as well. In practice,
>> > everyone has that already, and my patch by itself fixes all the
>> > cases where the FIFO is at a high address and dma_addr_t is already
>> > 64-bit wide.
>>
>> Let me summarize.
>>
>> We have to have classification by address space
>> 1) physical
>> 2) virtual
>
> That classification is oversimplified, as the DMA address space
> is often not the same as physical.
>

>> dma_addr_t is a physical address wrt DMA mask.
>>
>> Correct?
>
> dma_addr_t is how a device sees RAM, it is limited by the DMA mask
> that is a subset of the capabilities of the device and the buses
> through which it is connected, and is subject to IOMMU translation
> and possible platform or bus specific offsets from the physical
> memory. I still don't know where you're getting with this.

This is off the review already. I'm just structuring knowledge in my head.
In principle I agree with your patch.


--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-18 19:21    [W:0.038 / U:2.556 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site