From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:29:01 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: Dan Malek Cc: Matt Porter , Joakim Tjernlund , Pantelis Antoniou , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Regarding consistent_alloc Message-ID: <20021206112901.A18257@home.com> References: <3DF0A4D9.4030603@intracom.gr> <20021206085909.B17918@home.com> <3DF0D6B6.2050307@embeddededge.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3DF0D6B6.2050307@embeddededge.com>; from dan@embeddededge.com on Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:56:22AM -0500 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 11:56:22AM -0500, Dan Malek wrote: > Matt Porter wrote: > > > .... If you > > want the kernel virtual address then you can apply __va to that. > > Errr....no, you can't. That would give you the cached mapping. > You need to hang on to both the dma_handle (the phys address token) > and the virtual address returned by the function. That's why both > are returned. That's what I said...but you clipped it out. Once again, consistent_alloc provides the caller everything they need. An uncached mapping, a phys address, and from that you can use __va() to get the cached mapping. Seemed clear enough to me the first time. My definition of a "kernel virtual address" is the lowmem cached mapping. If I meant the uncached mapping I would have said it was a "kernel vmalloc address" or something. :) 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/