From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [Linux-ia64] Re: PCI DAC routines for SN
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 04:04:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <marc-linux-ia64-105590701905503@msgid-missing> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <marc-linux-ia64-105590701905493@msgid-missing>
From: Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 16:40:14 -0700
On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 04:07:33PM -0700, David Mosberger wrote:
> Oh man, what a mess! Have you checked with Dave Miller? I suspect
> he might not like this. I'm not terribly fond of it either as it
He was the one that implemented it I thought. His assertion was that
since most chipsets don't handle 64 bit coherent allocations well, the
consistent interface should be forced to return a 32 bit address (is
that right Dave?). I don't mind that as long as we add a DAC
consistent call, otherwise I'd like to leave it up to the platform
(i.e. ia64/sn could return a 64 bit address and sparc64 could do 32).
%99 of PCI chips out there do not support DAC addressing for things
like descriptor tables etc. So it's not a matter of "well" it's
a matter of "at all".
Therefore pci_alloc_consistent MUST provide SAC only addressing.
I was seeing patches where people would set the DMA mask for the
pci_dev around pci_alloc_consistent calls in order to accomplish
getting SAC addresses. That is exactly the kind of crap I was
trying to avoid.
Therefore, as per the API specification
(Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt) and reality, it's unacceptable
for pci_alloc_consistent() to return anything other than SAC
addresses (or something more constrained, if the DMA mask indicates
this, for example for devices with ISA addressing limitations).
I think it is unreasonable to add a special DAC alloc consistent
call.
Is this needed because you bozos don't have any physical memory below
4GB on some weird ia64 system ___AND___ you lack a PCI IOMMU in the
controllers again? This is getting rediculious if so, and I really
want to avoid crapping up the PCI DMA interfaces just because the ia64
PCI hardware folks keep making stupid design decisions.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-24 4:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-22 22:34 [Linux-ia64] Re: PCI DAC routines for SN David Mosberger
2002-04-22 22:39 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-22 23:07 ` David Mosberger
2002-04-22 23:40 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-23 1:34 ` Grant Grundler
2002-04-23 21:11 ` Grant Grundler
2002-04-24 4:04 ` David S. Miller [this message]
2002-04-24 5:49 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-24 5:50 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 16:13 ` Grant Grundler
2002-04-24 17:39 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 17:40 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-24 19:45 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-24 23:13 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-24 23:53 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25 0:08 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25 0:11 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25 0:17 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25 0:21 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25 0:36 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25 0:43 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25 1:00 ` David S. Miller
2002-04-25 1:01 ` Jesse Barnes
2002-04-25 1:22 ` Jesse Barnes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=marc-linux-ia64-105590701905503@msgid-missing \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox