On Friday, August 27, 2010 09:32:14 am FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 09:23:21 +0300 > Marin Mitov <mi...@issp.bas.bg> wrote: > > > On Friday, August 27, 2010 08:57:59 am FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 07:19:07 +0200 > > > Uwe Kleine-K$(D+S(Bnig <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 02:00:17PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 06:41:42 +0200 > > > > > Uwe Kleine-K$(D+S(Bnig <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 07:00:24PM +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 11:53:11 +0200 > > > > > > > Uwe Kleine-K$(D+S(Bnig <u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We have currently a number of boards broken in the > > > > > > > > > > mainline. They must be > > > > > > > > > > fixed for 2.6.36. I don't think the mentioned API will do > > > > > > > > > > this for us. So, > > > > > > > > > > as I suggested earlier, we need either this or my patch > > > > > > > > > > series > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/8595 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for 2.6.36. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why can't you revert a commit that causes the regression? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The related DMA API wasn't changed in 2.6.36-rc1. The DMA API > > > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > > > responsible for the regression. And the patchset even exnteds > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > definition of the DMA API (dma_declare_coherent_memory). Such > > > > > > > > > change > > > > > > > > > shouldn't applied after rc1. I think that DMA-API.txt says > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > dma_declare_coherent_memory() handles coherent memory for a > > > > > > > > > particular > > > > > > > > > device. It's not for the API that reserves coherent memory > > > > > > > > > that can be > > > > > > > > > used for any device for a single device. > > > > > > > > The patch that made the problem obvious for ARM is > > > > > > > > 309caa9cc6ff39d261264ec4ff10e29489afc8f8 aka > > > > > > > > v2.6.36-rc1~591^2~2^4~12. > > > > > > > > So this went in before v2.6.36-rc1. One of the "architectures > > > > > > > > which > > > > > > > > similar restrictions" is x86 BTW. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And no, we won't revert > > > > > > > > 309caa9cc6ff39d261264ec4ff10e29489afc8f8 as it > > > > > > > > addresses a hardware restriction. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How these drivers were able to work without hitting the hardware > > > > > > > restriction? > > > > > > In my case the machine in question is an ARMv5, the hardware > > > > > > restriction > > > > > > is on ARMv6+ only. You could argue that so the breaking patch for > > > > > > arm > > > > > > should only break ARMv6, but I don't think this is sensible from a > > > > > > maintainers POV. We need an API that works independant of the > > > > > > machine > > > > > > that runs the code. > > > > > > > > > > Agreed. But insisting that the DMA API needs to be extended wrongly > > > > > after rc2 to fix the regression is not sensible too. The related DMA > > > > > API wasn't changed in 2.6.36-rc1. The API isn't responsible for the > > > > > regression at all. > > > > I think this isn't about "responsiblity". Someone in arm-land found > > > > that the way dma memory allocation worked for some time doesn't work > > > > anymore on new generation chips. As pointing out this problem was > > > > expected to find some matches it was merged in the merge window. One > > > > such match is the current usage of the DMA API that doesn't currently > > > > offer a way to do it right, so it needs a patch, no? > > > > > > No, I don't think so. We are talking about a regression, right? > > > > > > On new generation chips, something often doesn't work (which have > > > worked on old chips for some time). It's not a regresiion. I don't > > > think that it's sensible to make large change (especially after rc1) > > > to fix such issue. If you say that the DMA API doesn't work on new > > > chips and proposes a patch for the next merge window, it's sensible, I > > > suppose. > > > > > > Btw, the patch isn't a fix for the DMA API. It tries to extend the DMA > > > API (and IMO in the wrong way). > > > In addition, the patch might break the > > > current code. > > > > To "break the current code" is simply not possible. Sorry to oppose. As you > > have written it > > "extend the DMA API", so if you do not use the new API (and no current code > > is using it) > > you cannot "break the current code". > > Looks like that the patch adds the new API that touches the exisitng > code. It means the existing code could break. So the exsising API > could break too. > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/8595
The above reference is not my patch. I am speaking for my patch: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/19/200 The only point my patch touches the existing code is struct device's member dma_mem and that is in condition you __use__ the new API, so you could decide yourself if it could break the current code. As far as one does not use the new API - nothing is touched, nothing can break. If one uses the new API, only the user can suffer if the new API have bugs. Thanks, Marin Mitov -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
