On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:59:22AM +0000, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 13:11 +0100, Thomas Hellström wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 09:19 +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 09:12:13AM +0100, Thomas Hellstrom wrote: > > > > -#if !defined(CONFIG_SWIOTLB) && !defined(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU) > > > > - /* > > > > - * No coherent page pool > > > > - */ > > > > - if (dev_priv->map_mode == vmw_dma_alloc_coherent) > > > > + /* No TTM coherent page pool? FIXME: Ask TTM instead! */ > > > > + if (!(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SWIOTLB) || > > > > IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_INTEL_IOMMU)) && > > > > + (dev_priv->map_mode == vmw_dma_alloc_coherent)) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > -#endif > > > > + > > > > > > I don't think this edited in change makes any sense. The swiotlb > > > vs > > > dma-direct versions of dma_alloc_coherent are the same, so this > > > check > > > seems very obsfucating. > > > > So this part of code is identical in functionality to the previous > > version. It checks whether the TTM module has the coherent page pool > > enabled. (an identical test is present in TTM). What we *really* need > > to do here instead is to ask TTM whether it has enabled its coherent > > page pool instead of trying to mimic TTM's test, and I have a > > changeset > > under review for that. But as mentioned previously, I don't want to > > change the TTM interface outside of a merge window, so we either have > > to live with the above for 5.0 or keep the old defines. I'd prefer > > the > > former so I don't have to respin the patch series once more. > > > > Thanks, > > Thoams > > > > Hi, Christoph, > > I need to get this merged this week. Could you please ack or ack > removing this hunk + updating the following patches for merge errors? > > If no response, I'll add a Cc: tag on the patch and a #v1 to your s-o- > b.
Please go ahead. I'll look into the fallout later.
