From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dhobsong@igel.co.jp (Damian Hobson-Garcia)
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 11:47:13 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-mapping: Define dma_{alloc,free}_attrs() for
 all archs
In-Reply-To: <20130522094741.GE14322@arm.com>
References: <1367290899-10410-1-git-send-email-dhobsong@igel.co.jp>
 <519C2F5D.8000809@igel.co.jp> <20130522094741.GE14322@arm.com>
Message-ID: <519D8331.3060203@igel.co.jp>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Catalin,
On 2013/05/22 18:47, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:37:17AM +0100, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
>> Hello,
>> On 2013/04/30 12:01, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
>>> Most architectures that define CONFIG_HAVE_DMA=y, have implementations for
>>> both dma_alloc_attrs() and dma_free_attrs().  All achitectures that do
>>> not define CONFIG_HAVE_DMA also have both of these definitions provided by
>>> dma-mapping-broken.h.
> 
> BTW, shouldn't this be called CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_ATTRS?

CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_ATTRS is currently used to enable the functions to
set/get the DMA attribute values. Poking through the headers, it looks
like the struct dma_attrs is defined regardless of the
CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_ATTRS setting, so in that respect
we always seem to "have" DMA attributes (if we have DMA), but they may
not always be meaningful (ie. set to some value).

> 
>>> Provide a default definition for the archs that define CONFIG_HAVE_DMA=y,
>>> but have no implementation for dma_{alloc,free}_attrs(). 
>>>
>>> As I don't have hardware for any of these systems, the patches are only
>>> compile-tested where I could (arm64, s390) and untested for the archs
>>> where I couldn't find a readily available prebuilt cross-compiler (c6x, parisc).
>>
>>>  arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h  |   17 +++++++++++------
>>>  arch/c6x/include/asm/dma-mapping.h    |    3 +++
>>>  arch/parisc/include/asm/dma-mapping.h |    3 +++
>>>  arch/s390/include/asm/dma-mapping.h   |   17 +++++++++++------
>>>  4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>
>>
>> Since this series spans several architectures, what would be the best
>> way to have this patch series merged?
>> Should I resubmit each patch to the mailing list for each architecture
>> separately?
> 
> I'm happy to take the arm64 patch.
Very much appreciated.

> 
> Thanks.
> 
Damian
-- 
Damian Hobson-Garcia
IGEL Co.,Ltd
http://www.igel.co.jp