Re: [PATCH 11/12] swiotlb: move the SWIOTLB config symbol to lib/Kconfig

2018-04-24 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 08:55:49AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:52:05AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:04:18PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This way we have one central definition of it, a

Re: [PATCH 11/12] swiotlb: move the SWIOTLB config symbol to lib/Kconfig

2018-04-23 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 07:04:18PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > This way we have one central definition of it, and user can select it as > needed. Note that we also add a second ARCH_HAS_SWIOTLB symbol to > indicate the architecture supports swiotlb at all, so that we can still > make the

Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix rd_size declaration

2017-06-26 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:26:07PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-03 at 12:46 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > The global variable 'rd_size' is declared as 'int' in source file > > arch/arm/kernel/atags_parse.c and as 'unsigned long' in > > drivers/block/brd.c. Fix this

Re: [PATCH] ARM: Fix rd_size declaration

2017-05-03 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 08:51:35PM +, Bart Van Assche wrote: > On Mon, 2017-04-17 at 16:10 -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > > The global variable 'rd_size' is declared as 'int' in source file > > arch/arm/kernel/atags_parse.c and as 'unsigned long' in > > drivers/block/brd.c. Fix this

Re: [PATCH v4] mmc: sdio: check the buffer address for sdio API

2017-02-15 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:12:47PM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On 2017/2/15 3:34, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > >On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:18:43AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > >>The current situation seems like a bit of a mess. Why don't you have two >

Re: [PATCH v4] mmc: sdio: check the buffer address for sdio API

2017-02-14 Thread Russell King - ARM Linux
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 09:18:43AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: > The current situation seems like a bit of a mess. Why don't you have two > entry points, one for DMA and one for PIO. If the caller doesn't know if > he can use DMA, he'd better call the PIO variant. Either that, or audit > all callers