From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:33:15 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:9434 "EHLO dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20027368AbXK0QdN (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:33:13 +0000 Received: from denk.linux-mips.net (denk.linux-mips.net [127.0.0.1]) by dl5rb.ham-radio-op.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lARGX8cX027202; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:33:09 GMT Received: (from ralf@localhost) by denk.linux-mips.net (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id lARGWvp8027176; Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:32:57 GMT Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:32:57 +0000 From: Ralf Baechle To: Thomas Bogendoerfer Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, jgarzik@pobox.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] SGISEEQ: use cached memory access to make driver work on IP28 Message-ID: <20071127163257.GB23642@linux-mips.org> References: <20071126223934.84BE7C2B26@solo.franken.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071126223934.84BE7C2B26@solo.franken.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) 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: 17614 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: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 01:29:19PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > Following patch is clearly 2.6.25 material and is needed to get SGI IP28 > machines supported. > > Thomas. > > SGI IP28 machines would need special treatment (enable adding addtional > wait states) when accessing memory uncached. To avoid this pain I changed > the driver to use only cached access to memory. > > Signed-off-by: Thomas Bogendoerfer IP28 is clearly a maximum weirdo beast. Technically the patch looks fine it's just a few stilistic issues such as there no reason for DMA_SYNC_DESC_CPU and DMA_SYNC_DESC_DEV being macros so why not using inlines. Acked-by: Ralf Baechle Ralf