Re: [PATCH] RFC: kills consistent_dma_mask

David S. Miller
2003-08-18T12:50:30Z

On 18 Aug 2003 14:44:19 +0200
Krzysztof Halasa <khc@pm.waw.pl> wrote:

> "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > ia64 does in fact need consistent_dma_mask.
>
> For what?

Because on some SGI ia64 platforms the need to allow a different range
for consistent_dma_mask than they do for the normal dma_mask.

The ia64 support code to do things with consistent_dma_mask just isn't
in the tree yet.

Because the other platforms don't to do anything special wrt. this
they can just ignore consitent_dma_mask altogether.