From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ohaugan@codeaurora.org (Olav Haugan) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 14:32:36 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v5 1/1] iommu-api: Add map_sg/unmap_sg functions In-Reply-To: <20140818212627.GI9809@8bytes.org> References: <1407797150-515-1-git-send-email-ohaugan@codeaurora.org> <1407797150-515-2-git-send-email-ohaugan@codeaurora.org> <871tsm5vcn.fsf@nvidia.com> <53EA472B.3020900@codeaurora.org> <20140818140730.GC9809@8bytes.org> <53F266AE.40303@codeaurora.org> <20140818212627.GI9809@8bytes.org> Message-ID: <53F270F4.6040109@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 8/18/2014 2:26 PM, joro at 8bytes.org wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 01:48:46PM -0700, Olav Haugan wrote: >> On 8/18/2014 11:32 AM, Rob Clark wrote: > >> No, I do not have other uses right now. But could imagine use cases like >> "force mapping" flag etc. > > I think it is worth discussing to add a flush() function to the > IOMMU-API. I sent a patch-set myself a few years ago introducing an > iommu_commit() function with the same semantics, but this is > out-of-scope for this patch-set. > > Also adding a flag parameter to iommu_map_sg would introduce an > asymentrie in the API to the iommu_map() function. So please leave it > out for this patch-set, when we really need a flag parameter someday we > can introduce it for iommu_map() and iommu_map_sg() together. > Sure, I can remove it. I was trying to make iommu_map_sg/iommu_unmap_sg symmetric :-) Anything else before I push v6? Thanks, Olav -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation