From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from stanley (unknown [193.120.93.48]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6713A2BD46 for ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 01:26:37 +1000 (EST) Received: from [192.168.1.160] (helo=eircom.net) by stanley with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CJvsZ-0005pp-FL for linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:27 +0100 Message-ID: <41753223.2030202@eircom.net> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:26:27 +0100 From: Conor McLoughlin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linuxppc-embedded References: <1098072098.751.32.camel@nighteyes.localdomain> <41738D27.4060007@eircom.net> <4174D1F4.2050506@eircom.net> <5925F5E8-21D9-11D9-A47E-003065F9B7DC@embeddededge.com> In-Reply-To: <5925F5E8-21D9-11D9-A47E-003065F9B7DC@embeddededge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Subject: Re: Does kmalloc on MPC82xx work correctly with GFP_DMA? List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Thanks to everyone who replied. I appreciate your time to help educate me. > It works because the 82xx is cache coherent. The MMU mapping > is irrelevant. That is the missing piece of the puzzle. I had worked with the 860 before and this was an issue. It hadn't occurred to me that the 82xx was different. > There is no bug here. Just because people don't > understand how something works doesn't mean there is a bug > present. The reason I asked the question in the first place was because I didn't understand how it could work. I now understand it and can rest easier. Thanks, Conor