From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <406B3CE0.2050600@embeddededge.com> Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2004 16:49:20 -0500 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Whitney Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Proposed changes to io.h References: <49B568CB-832A-11D8-9FF0-000A95A07384@sands-edge.com> <20040331181852.GA20127@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: John Whitney wrote: > ..... Shouldn't some care > be taken to ensure that ANY virtual address passed to these routines > maps to the correct physical (bus) address? Don't go there. This has been discussed over and over in the past and as Matt said, this is not the place. Read the archives if you want to see these discussions. The code works according to the documentation, and the implementation of the pci_*/dma_* functions allows the flexibility we need to support systems where the mapping is more challenging. The kernel and drivers should not be directly using virt_to_bus() and all of its cousins, they should use the DMA mapping functions documented. -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/