From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 77112B708C for ; Sun, 2 Aug 2009 17:51:05 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stop pci_set_dma_mask() from failing when RAM doesn't exceed the mask anyway From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1249117220.20192.1083.camel@macbook.infradead.org> References: <1249069310.20192.220.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1249079105.1509.95.camel@pasglop> <1249113285.20192.961.camel@macbook.infradead.org> <1249113656.1509.125.camel@pasglop> <1249117220.20192.1083.camel@macbook.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:50:37 +1000 Message-Id: <1249199437.12047.11.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 10:00 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > I'm not sure. Losing 16MiB on a machine which only has 512MiB anyway > doesn't seem ideal, and we'll want to make the no-iommu code DTRT > _anyway_, surely? > > So we might as well let the DART keep its existing logic (which is > only > to bother if we have more than 1GiB of RAM; Ah right, so when do we enable the DART ? Above 1G ? I though it was above 2G but we may well have moved that down to 1G just for b43 indeed. I definitely agree on the fix to the mask so it only compares to the available RAM. I'll check that in when I'm back from the snow fields on tuesday :-) Cheers, Ben,