From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] dma-mapping: Define dma_{alloc,free}_attrs() for all archs Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 10:47:41 +0100 Message-ID: <20130522094741.GE14322@arm.com> References: <1367290899-10410-1-git-send-email-dhobsong@igel.co.jp> <519C2F5D.8000809@igel.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-c6x-dev@linux-c6x.org" , "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" , "deller@gmx.de" , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "msalter@redhat.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" To: Damian Hobson-Garcia Return-path: In-Reply-To: <519C2F5D.8000809@igel.co.jp> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org 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? > > 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. Thanks. -- Catalin