On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:29:28PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > In attempting to make consistent_alloc/free() work sensibly on > processors which are cache coherent I ran into a problem.
My only concern is that is it a good idea to make a 'consistent_alloc' and 'consistent_free' functions for cache-cohernet processors, which aren't doing what the name implies? The only possible caller of these are pci_alloc_consistent and pci_free_consistent, in a cache-cohernet processor. [snip] > I suggest we change consistent_free() to take the virtual addresss, > size and the physical address (dma_addr_t), which will make our > consistent_free() match the one on ARM. I know we don't need the > third argument in any existing situation. I wonder if ARM couldn't just call vfree() like we do.. In fact, I wonder why consistent_alloc/free seem to have some minor differences (__get_free_pages vs alloc_pages seems to be the only real difference aside from style things). Dan? Can we get some more insight into the workings of your mind? :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
