Re: [RFC] generic device DMA implementation

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:41:31PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 01:38:47PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
>>
>>>It seems the "try to get consistent memory, but otherwise give me
>>>inconsistent" is only useful on machines which:
>>>	(1) Are not fully consisent, BUT
>>>	(2) Can get consistent memory without disabling the cache, BUT
>>>	(3) Not very much of it, so you might run out.
>>>
>>>The point is, there has to be an advantage to using consistent memory
>>>if it is available AND the possibility of it not being available.
>>
>>Agreed here.  Add to this
>>
>>(4) quite silly from an API taste perspective.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Otherwise, drivers which absolutely need consistent memory, no matter
>>>the cost, should use consistent_alloc(), all other drivers just use
>>>kmalloc() (or whatever) then use the DMA flushing functions which
>>>compile to NOPs on platforms with consistent memory.
>>
>>Ug.  This is travelling backwards in time.
>>
>>kmalloc is not intended to allocate memory for DMA'ing.  I (and others)
>>didn't spend all that time converting drivers to the PCI DMA API just to
>>see all that work undone.
> 
> 
> But if there aren't any consistency constraints on the memory, why not
> get it with kmalloc().  There are two approaches to handling DMA on a
> not-fully-consistent machine:
> 	1) Allocate the memory specially so that it is consistent
> 	2) Use any old memory, and make sure we have explicit cache
> frobbing.

For me it's an API issue.  kmalloc does not return DMA'able memory.

If "your way" is acceptable to most, then at the very least I would want

	#define get_any_old_dmaable_memory kmalloc