From: Michael Ellerman <michael@ellerman.id.au>
To: Becky Bruce <beckyb@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Change archdata dma_data type to dma_addr_t
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:24:56 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1251332696.5914.6.camel@concordia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E3F20841-FB04-44EF-8DAA-91F51873C0A6@kernel.crashing.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1998 bytes --]
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 15:20 -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2009, at 9:08 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 22:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 21:48 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:17:14AM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> >>>> Previously, this was specified as a void *, but that's not
> >>>> large enough on 32-bit systems with 36-bit physical
> >>>> addressing support. Change the type to dma_addr_t so it
> >>>> will scale based on the size of a dma address.
> >>>
> >>> This looks extreml ugly to me. It seems like the typical use is to
> >>> store a pointer to a structure. So what about making the direct
> >>> dma case follow that general scheme instead?
> >>>
> >>> E.g. declare a
> >>>
> >>> struct direct_dma_data {
> >>> dma_addr_t direct_dma_offset;
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> and have one normal instace of it, and one per weird cell device.
> >>
> >> Right, but we want to avoid a structure for the classic case of 32-
> >> bit
> >> systems with no iommu...
> >>
> >> I wouldn't mind doing a union here.
> >
> > That might be best, the patch as it stands is a horrible mess of
> > casts.
>
> Let's be fair - the code before was a horrible mess of casts, I've
> just moved them :)
Yeah true. Though I think we end up with more casts because there were
more call sites using it as a pointer originally. But yeah it's not
pretty either way.
> > Stashing a dma_addr_t into a void * is sort of gross, but storing a
> > pointer to some struct (a void *) in a dma_addr_t is _really_ gross :)
>
> Both are revolting (and storing a dma_addr_t into a void * is really
> gross when the void * is smaller than the dma_addr_t!!). A union
> might not be a bad idea, though. I'll look at doing that instead.
Cool. That is how we're using it, sometimes it points to something
sometimes it's a dma_addr_t, so I think a union will work.
cheers
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-27 0:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-24 16:17 [PATCH] powerpc: Change archdata dma_data type to dma_addr_t Becky Bruce
2009-08-24 19:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-08-26 12:29 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2009-08-26 14:08 ` Michael Ellerman
2009-08-26 20:20 ` Becky Bruce
2009-08-27 0:24 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
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=1251332696.5914.6.camel@concordia \
--to=michael@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=beckyb@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.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