From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Alessandro Rubini <ru@gnudd.com>
Cc: fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, giancarlo.asnaghi@st.com,
maddalena.brattoli@st.com, alan@linux.intel.com
Subject: Re: a question on DMA and remapping
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:47:29 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111117154729.afa24f07.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111117233059.GA659@mail.gnudd.com>
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:30:59 +0100
Alessandro Rubini <ru@gnudd.com> wrote:
> Hello.
> This goes to the maintainers of x86::asm/dma-mapping.h and lib/swiotlb.c,
> with Cc: to involved people.
>
> I have an Intel evaluation board with the ST IO-Hub called STA2X11 and
> I'm working to port the STA2X11 drivers to mainstream. The code is
> currently on sourceforge. Since the device is based on a PCI-Amba
> bridge, all DMA addresses are different from CPU addresses, even for
> normal PCI devices, like EHCI.
>
> Unfortunately, the current patch is changing 3 inlines to external
> functions. They are dma_capable, phys_to_dma, dma_to_phys -- which
> actually are only used in swiotlb.c .
>
> I thought about the following two approaches towards a clean port:
>
> - using dma_supported(), which relies on dev->dma_ops->dma_supported
> and adding phys_to_dma and dma_to_phys to the dma operations. In
> the new fields, the default NULL may be used to select the current
> behaviour in an inline function.
Sounds OK. swiotlb.c isn't exactly super-fast code anyway.
> - copying lib/swiotlb.c to my own file, which will be almost
> identical to the existing one but for a few lines.
Don't do that ;)
> The former approach will have some tiny overhead on all users, besides
> messing with dma_capable and dma_allowed, possibly introducing bugs in
> some corner cases (but the current situation is quite messy, may I
> say...)
>
> The latter approach means code duplication, which is bad. Although
> maybe over time I may be able to shrink the current swiotlb.c to a
> much smaller snippet. I tend to prefer this one, but I'm not sure if
> it's acceptable.
>
> Any feedback is welcome. Thanks in advance.
Generalising the existing code to cover more cases isn't a bad thing to
do. Others might be able to use it, and they surely won't be able to
use any cloned-and-owned swiotlb.c.
Please do carefully docment the new interfaces so others can understand
why they exist and can use them successfully.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-11-17 23:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-11-17 23:30 a question on DMA and remapping Alessandro Rubini
2011-11-17 23:47 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2011-11-22 23:00 ` Alan Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20111117154729.afa24f07.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=giancarlo.asnaghi@st.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maddalena.brattoli@st.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ru@gnudd.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).