On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 03:25:48PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > If you implement the performance improvement I suggested earlier, I don't > > > think > > > you need them. Another thing with consistent_xxx() is that you can not use > > > __pa() and __va() on addresses returned by the consistent_alloc et. al. > > > > Um, well if you are doing a consistent_alloc() then surely you are > > keeping the dma_handle around which is your physical address. If you > > want the kernel virtual address then you can apply __va to that. So, > > you have the cache inhibited mapping in vmalloc space returned to you, > > the physical address provided in dma_handle, and a kernel virtual address > > that can be trivially generated. > > m8xx_cpm_hostalloc() does not keep the DMA handle and __pa() does not work > on addresses returned by m8xx_cpm_hostalloc(). I just found that out the > hard way when upgrading from MV 2.4.2 to linuxppc_2_4_devel 2.4.20. My SPI > driver
that's a problem with m8xx_cpm_hostalloc() (or how you are using it) if it doesn't keep around the values you need. -- Matt Porter porter at cox.net This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
