From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97978DE1BE for ; Mon, 25 May 2009 14:35:16 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: powerpc: DMA coherent allocations broken for CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <200905250243.15436.arnd@arndb.de> References: <9481.63517.qm@web28305.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> <1243160487.22770.59.camel@pasglop> <1243210914.24376.11.camel@pasglop> <200905250243.15436.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 25 May 2009 14:19:41 +1000 Message-Id: <1243225181.24376.20.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Albert Herranz , Ilya Yanok List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 02:43 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > I might be missing too much context here, but can't we make drivers > that > need this allocate an uncached memory range at setup time and call > dma_declare_coherent_memory() on that to make a later > dma_alloc_coherent() > succeed without GFP_KERNEL? That isn't that much different, and still needs a dedicated allocator which is pretty much what I'm trying to get rid of. It would make everybody's life easier if we just banned those allocations from atomic contexts :-) Cheers, Ben.