From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:15:38 +1000 From: David Gibson To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org, Paul Mackerras Subject: Re: consistent_free() Message-ID: <20020624021538.GX9087@zax> References: <20020614042928.GK26146@zax> <20020614055711.GA1124@zax> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20020614055711.GA1124@zax> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:57:11PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:29:28PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > In attempting to make consistent_alloc/free() work sensibly on > > processors which are cache coherent I ran into a problem. > > consistent_free() doesn't take a size argument. We don't need it in > > the case of not cache coherent processors - in that case > > consistent_alloc() sets up a vm_area() so there's enough information > > to get the size. However for cache coherent processors we probably > > want consistent_alloc() to degenerate to __get_free_pages(), in which > > case consistent_free() must degenerate to free_pages(), which takes a > > size argument. > > > > I suggest we change consistent_free() to take the virtual addresss, > > size and the physical address (dma_addr_t), which will make our > > consistent_free() match the one on ARM. I know we don't need the > > third argument in any existing situation. > > > > Patch coming... > > As promised... > > This boots up fine on my EP405PC board, and I'm sending this mail from > my TiBook running 2_4_devel with this patch and also the 40x large > page PMD patch. Again, silence reigns. Anyone who would object to this being applied to the linuxppc-2.5 tree, speak up now. -- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. -- H.L. Mencken http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/