From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:52:06 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: Matt Porter , Pantelis Antoniou , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Regarding consistent_alloc Message-ID: <20021206115206.C18257@home.com> References: <20021206113007.B18257@home.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se on Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:15:15PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > that's a problem with m8xx_cpm_hostalloc() (or how you are using it) if > > it doesn't keep around the values you need. > > > > Yes and no, someone changed the m8xx_cpm_hostalloc() implementation and now > it does not behave as it used to. Earlier both __pa(adr) and __va(__pa(adr)) > worked on addresses returned by m8xx_cpm_hostalloc(). > > I think in it's current form it's useless and should either be changed back to what > it was or die. The 8xx-specific stuff is clearly Dan's area...I was just commenting on your generic concerns about consistent_*. Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/