From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dale@farnsworth.org>
Received: from farnsworth.org (xyzzy.farnsworth.org [65.39.95.219])
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5DB0DDE02
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:29:09 +1000 (EST)
From: "Dale Farnsworth" <dale@farnsworth.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:29:08 -0700
To: Domen Puncer <domen.puncer@telargo.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] FEC - fast ethernet controller for mpc52xx
Message-ID: <20071025202908.GA2102@xyzzy.farnsworth.org>
References: <20071014075511.GC3000@nd47.coderock.org>
	<4713BA1C.2050604@pobox.com>
	<fa686aa40710180715u23d81adfy83ff65837725fb80@mail.gmail.com>
	<4717B09B.3060800@pobox.com>
	<20071019112700.GD27403@nd47.coderock.org>
	<47206209.8080109@pobox.com>
	<20071025185706.29496.qmail@farnsworth.org>
	<20071025194114.GH3369@nd47.coderock.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20071025194114.GH3369@nd47.coderock.org>
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 09:41:14PM +0200, Domen Puncer wrote:
> On 25/10/07 11:57 -0700, Dale Farnsworth wrote:
> > Domen wrote:
> > > > use your platform's dma mapping functions, rather than virt_to_phys()
> > > > 
> > > > it might be the exact same implementation, inside the platform 
> > > > internals, but drivers should not be using this directly.
> > > 
> > > I've replaced this with dma_map_single(), unmatched with
> > > dma_unmap_single(), since bestcomm doesn't have a way to do that
> > > and it's blank on ppc32 anyway.
> > > 
> > > Is this OK? PPC guys?
> > 
> > Even though dma_unmap_single() may be a no-op, calls to
> > dma_map_single() must be matched with calls to dma_unmap_single().
> > 
> > Perhaps with the additions below:
> > 
> > > +static void mpc52xx_fec_free_rx_buffers(struct bcom_task *s)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct sk_buff *skb;
> > > +
> > > +	while (!bcom_queue_empty(s)) {
> > > +		skb = bcom_retrieve_buffer(s, NULL, NULL);
> > 
> > 		dma_unmap_single(&skb->dev->dev, skb-data,
> > 				 FEC_RX_BUFFER_SIZE, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
> 
> It looks to me like dma_unmap_single takes the mapped address
> (what dma_map_single returned), and not the address we're mapping
> (skb->data).

Yeah.  Sorry.  That won't be so easy.  We'll either need to
squirrel away the mapped address, or change the interface to
bcom_retrieve_buffers() so we can get the address.

IMO, it's still a requirement that we call dma_unmap_single() for
each call to dma_map_single().

-Dale