From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:38:07 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Dan Malek , Eugene Surovegin , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci_alloc_consistent in an interrupt context Message-ID: <20020614003807.GD13541@opus.bloom.county> References: <5.1.0.14.2.20020613122317.02e34480@mail.zultys.com> <20020613205824.GX13541@opus.bloom.county> <3D0912F4.4020300@embeddededge.com> <20020613215635.GB13541@opus.bloom.county> <20020614002419.GM4228@zax> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020614002419.GM4228@zax> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 10:24:19AM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 02:56:35PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 05:47:32PM -0400, Dan Malek wrote: > > > Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > >..... But I don't see (immediatly) why the change to > > > >pci_alloc_consistent was needed as well. > > > > > > It was a mistake on my part......when CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE is used, > > > the consisten_alloc() returns the dma_handle, and we have to ensure we > > > don't do the virt_to_bus later to get it (because it will be wrong once > > > iopa() is discarded :-) > > > > Ah.. So this part is a correct and necessary fix, separate from the > > rest of the patch? > > That's right. But I think the patch below is a better fix for the > problem. It makes consistent_alloc()/consistent_free() just do the > right thing for both cache coherent and cache non-coherent processors, > so we can get rid of the ifdef in pci_alloc_consistent() and > pci_free_consistent(). Er, the problem of setting dma_handle twice? My only concern is that are things still consistent on non consistent procs? -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/