From: Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>
To: Jes Sorensen <jes@wildopensource.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] support 64 bit pci_alloc_consistent
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 03:05:22 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200305180705.h4I75MT13787@devserv.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1053231184.22467.linux-kernel2news@redhat.com>
> The default mask for pci_alloc_consistent() is still 32 bit as there are
> 64 bit capable hardware out there that doesn't support 64 bit addresses
> for descripters etc.
I think this is a mix-up of concepts. You mean aic7xxx, right?
IMHO, it's an example of a device which needs various masks
for different allocations. As it happens, the driver uses
consistent allocations with one mask, streaming allocations
with other mask. This is a pure coincidence, however. Being
consistent or streaming is one thing, and asking for various
masks is another thing.
But I see that there may be practical differences if we suddenly
make pci_set_dma_mask act upon consistent allocations. So,
perhaps you're right... Let's add a call...
> @@ -94,6 +103,11 @@
>
> int pci_set_dma_mask(struct pci_dev *pdev, u64 device_mask);
>
> +The query for consistent allocations is performed via a a call to
> +pci_set_consistent_dma_mask():
> +
> + int pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(struct pci_dev *pdev, u64 device_mask);
I think it's not a query, but a request, but I'm not a native
speaker.
> +pci_set_consistent_dma_mask() will always be able to set the same or a
> +smaller mask as pci_set_dma_mask(). However for the rare case that a
> +device driver only uses consistent allocations, one would have to
> +check the return value from pci_set_consistent().
pci_set_consistent_dma_mask, surely.
> + dev->consistent_dma_mask = mask;
> + u64 consistent_dma_mask;/* Like dma_mask, but for
> + pci_alloc_consistent mappings as
> + not all hardware supports
> + 64 bit addresses for consistent
> + allocations such descriptors. */
> +int pci_set_consistent_dma_mask(struct pci_dev *dev, u64 mask);
This is cool, but where is the implementation?
I do not see anyone honouring the ->consistent_dma_mask
in the patch. I'm stupid, right?
-- Pete
next parent reply other threads:[~2003-05-18 6:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <mailman.1053231184.22467.linux-kernel2news@redhat.com>
2003-05-18 7:05 ` Pete Zaitcev [this message]
2003-05-18 4:09 [patch] support 64 bit pci_alloc_consistent Jes Sorensen
2003-05-18 5:46 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-18 6:00 ` Andre Hedrick
2003-05-18 9:29 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-05-18 9:35 ` David S. Miller
2003-05-18 9:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-05-18 14:17 ` James Bottomley
2003-05-18 14:21 ` Arjan van de Ven
2003-05-18 14:28 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200305180705.h4I75MT13787@devserv.devel.redhat.com \
--to=zaitcev@redhat.com \
--cc=jes@wildopensource.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.