From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 08:59:09 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Joakim Tjernlund Cc: Pantelis Antoniou , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Regarding consistent_alloc Message-ID: <20021206085909.B17918@home.com> References: <3DF0A4D9.4030603@intracom.gr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from joakim.tjernlund@lumentis.se on Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 03:25:48PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 03:25:48PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > If you implement the performance improvement I suggested earlier, I don't think > you need them. Another thing with consistent_xxx() is that you can not use > __pa() and __va() on addresses returned by the consistent_alloc et. al. Um, well if you are doing a consistent_alloc() then surely you are keeping the dma_handle around which is your physical address. If you want the kernel virtual address then you can apply __va to that. So, you have the cache inhibited mapping in vmalloc space returned to you, the physical address provided in dma_handle, and a kernel virtual address that can be trivially generated. Regards, -- Matt Porter porter@cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/