Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
From: Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:18:34 + > On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:38:13PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > > While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any > > in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there > > be objections to remove all of these? > > They should go away. Having them in for more than five years without > any users is almost a guarantee for bitrot. Yes, probably we should get rid of them. The idea wasn't sparc optimizations, it was for things like those Dolphin clustering cards that essentially want to get at all of physical memory from the PCI card. The IOMMU is a limited resource, so at the expense of lack of prefetching and write caching we provide a way to do unlimited DMA mapping with 64-bit DAC addresses. None of these drivers ever got integrated, so it's a total loss. Someone will complain when we pull it out, but fsck them, they had years to do something about this. :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:38:13PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: > While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any > in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there > be objections to remove all of these? They should go away. Having them in for more than five years without any users is almost a guarantee for bitrot. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
On Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:38 am Jan Beulich wrote: > While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be > any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). > Would there be objections to remove all of these? It should be safe to kill them, but I remember arguing with davem about this stuff in the past... Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote: > While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any > in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there > be objections to remove all of these? Would be fine for me. I think the original idea was to optimize for some SPARC systems, but they were never really used for that. x86 never needed them. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
PCI DAC DMA APIs
While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there be objections to remove all of these? Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
PCI DAC DMA APIs
While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there be objections to remove all of these? Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
On Thursday 15 March 2007 13:38, Jan Beulich wrote: While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there be objections to remove all of these? Would be fine for me. I think the original idea was to optimize for some SPARC systems, but they were never really used for that. x86 never needed them. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
On Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:38 am Jan Beulich wrote: While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there be objections to remove all of these? It should be safe to kill them, but I remember arguing with davem about this stuff in the past... Jesse - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:38:13PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there be objections to remove all of these? They should go away. Having them in for more than five years without any users is almost a guarantee for bitrot. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: PCI DAC DMA APIs
From: Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 19:18:34 + On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 12:38:13PM +, Jan Beulich wrote: While the kernel headers provide for this, there don't appear to be any in-tree users (which seems contrary to general Linux policies). Would there be objections to remove all of these? They should go away. Having them in for more than five years without any users is almost a guarantee for bitrot. Yes, probably we should get rid of them. The idea wasn't sparc optimizations, it was for things like those Dolphin clustering cards that essentially want to get at all of physical memory from the PCI card. The IOMMU is a limited resource, so at the expense of lack of prefetching and write caching we provide a way to do unlimited DMA mapping with 64-bit DAC addresses. None of these drivers ever got integrated, so it's a total loss. Someone will complain when we pull it out, but fsck them, they had years to do something about this. :) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
