Re: [PATCH 4/4] POWERPC: Merge 32 and 64-bit dma code

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>]

On Tue, Sep 09, 2008 at 09:39:20AM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> .... because you asked me to have just map/unmap_page in your review  
> of an earlier rev of this patch series in May? :)  I don't actually  
> expect you to remember this, because it was a long time ago, but  
> here's the relevant chunk of the conversation:
> 
> On May 23, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> >On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 06:36:43PM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> >>In addition, the dma_map/unmap_page functions are added to dma_ops on
> >>HIGHMEM-enabled configs because we can't just fall back on map/ 
> >>unmap_single
> >>when HIGHMEM is enabled.  Adding these to dma_ops makes it cleaner to
> >>substitute different functionality once we have iommu/swiotlb  
> >>support.
> >
> >Maybe I'm missing something but we should only have the page ones.
> >virt_to_page is cheap and we'll most likely need the phys address  
> >which
> >we get from the page anyway.
> 
> 
> So I did that for the dma_direct_* ops, but discovered that doing it  
> for the iommu case (which I can't test and don't fully understand)  
> would be a bit more complicated.  The above code (in conjunction with  
> the same code for map_page) allows you to have map/unmap_page, map/ 
> unmap_single, or both.  I'm happy to change it again, though.  We  
> could just do the above in map_page/unmap_page, calling map/ 
> unmap_single if there is no map/unmap_page, and provide both a  
> dma_direct_map/unmap_single and a dma_direct_map/unmap_page for the  
> dma_direct* ops.

Yeah, the statement this time should be why do you keep _single :)
It don't really mind which one we keep, but having both and both
optional seems rather odd.