On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 07:59:22AM +, 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.
