Will Dyson wrote: > On 3/24/07, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I _still_ think that this should be fixed in the arch DMA code >> and _not_ in every single driver on earth. But I discussed this in >> the past. > > That would be nice. What would that look like to you? A GFP flag that > gets memory within the dma_mask?
To me that would mean honoring the dma_mask for _ALL_ DMA memory allocations. I have not followed all the arguments as to why this was never fixed in the i386 code, but I know that the x86_64 architecture was forced to produce the same (wrong) results as were obtained in the i386-specific code. I agree that it should be fixed; however, it will never happen. As a result, every driver for hardware with less than 32-bit DMA addressing has to address (pun intended) the problem. We will probably be fighting the problem again when > 4 GB RAM computers become common and 32 bits are not enough to address all of memory. Larry _______________________________________________ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
