From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:27:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail3.caviumnetworks.com ([12.108.191.235]:15888 "EHLO mail3.caviumnetworks.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492213Ab0CXQ1h (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:27:37 +0100 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com (Not Verified[192.168.16.9]) by mail3.caviumnetworks.com with MailMarshal (v6,7,2,8378) id ; Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:27:46 -0700 Received: from caexch01.caveonetworks.com ([192.168.16.9]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:27:08 -0700 Received: from dd1.caveonetworks.com ([12.108.191.236]) by caexch01.caveonetworks.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:27:08 -0700 Message-ID: <4BAA3D5C.1000202@caviumnetworks.com> Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:27:08 -0700 From: David Daney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Zhuang Yuyao CC: linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [BUG?] cavium cn56xx and dma_map_single warning References: <4BA79E69.1040803@caviumnetworks.com> <4BA81BC7.5060600@caviumnetworks.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Mar 2010 16:27:08.0335 (UTC) FILETIME=[D92433F0:01CACB6E] Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 26303 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ddaney@caviumnetworks.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On 03/22/2010 06:45 PM, Zhuang Yuyao wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 9:39 AM, David Daney wrote: > >> The issue is maintaining mappings for 32-bit PCI devices. If you only want >> to support 64-bit devices, it would be easier to address the issue. >> >> David Daney >> > > Wow, that is a great news, I do not known if my adaptec 3045e raid > card is a 64bit device, but if I only want to support 64bit devices, > Is there a quick fix for it? > I don't know. You could try to make all DMA accesses go via BAR2. That would break many 32-bit devices though. David Daney > Zhuang Yuyao >