From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5764DDE3B for ; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:07:40 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <45CCFAD6.5070807@freescale.com> References: <989B956029373F45A0B8AF02970818900D444B@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net> <1170969965.2620.345.camel@localhost.localdomain> <0640B069-F05E-4A08-A8EB-C277BEF1466E@embeddedalley.com> <1171058780.6578.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1EFFAE36-7396-45B5-B8F2-DD7348FBE385@kernel.crashing.org> <45CCFAD6.5070807@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7B89E9E3-620C-4DF5-96E7-AF05287D89DC@kernel.crashing.org> From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: Discussion about iopa() Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:06:47 -0600 To: Timur Tabi Cc: linuxppc-dev list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Feb 9, 2007, at 4:51 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > Kumar Gala wrote: > >> My feeling is to leave the code alone until we have the dma >> mapping api setup to handle MURAM. If we can't do alloc/map/free >> with the same mechanism I dont see the value in just doing 'map'. >> It just makes the code more confusing w/o any big gain. > > So you don't want to see a patch where we store the physical > address in our own data structures when the memory is mapped (or > allocated if it's regular RAM)? It doesn't seem like it's that big of a change. I'd rather the code clearly do different things for MURAM vs system memory for ALL accesses. - k