On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 09:46:48AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> If I don't hear anything back in the next days I will just merge
> these patches, please comment.
Applied to the dma-mapping for-next tree now.
If I don't hear anything back in the next days I will just merge
these patches, please comment.
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 02:22:19PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Russell,
>
> any additional comments on this series?
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:15:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On
Russell,
any additional comments on this series?
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 03:15:03PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:04:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > So how does the driver negotiation for >32bit addresses work if we don't
> > fail for large
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:04:37PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> So how does the driver negotiation for >32bit addresses work if we don't
> fail for large masks?
>
> I'm thinking about all those PCI drivers that need DAC cycles for >32bit
> addresses, such as e1000, which
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 02:47:28PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> The dma masks in struct device are always 64-bits wide. But for builds
> using a 32-bit dma_addr_t we need to ensure we don't store an
> unsupportable value. Before Linux 5.0 this was handled at least by
> the ARM dma mapping
