On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 07:45:57PM +, Lendacky, Thomas wrote:
> So I think this needs to be __phys_to_dma() here. I only recently got a
> system that had a device where the driver only supported 32-bit DMA and
> found that when SME is active this returns 0 and causes the driver to fail
> to
On 10/04/2018 10:13 AM, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:25 AM Robin Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On 04/10/18 00:48, Alexander Duyck wrote:
>>> It appears that in commit 9d7a224b463e ("dma-direct: always allow dma mask
>>> <= physiscal memory size") the logic of the test was changed from
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 08:13:26AM -0700, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
>
> - Alex
>
> P.S. It looks like I forgot to add Christoph to the original mail
> since I had just copied the To and Cc from the original submission, so
> I added him to the Cc for this.
Yes, there was
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 4:25 AM Robin Murphy wrote:
>
> On 04/10/18 00:48, Alexander Duyck wrote:
> > It appears that in commit 9d7a224b463e ("dma-direct: always allow dma mask
> > <= physiscal memory size") the logic of the test was changed from a "<" to
> > a ">=" however I don't see any reason
On 04/10/18 00:48, Alexander Duyck wrote:
It appears that in commit 9d7a224b463e ("dma-direct: always allow dma mask
<= physiscal memory size") the logic of the test was changed from a "<" to
a ">=" however I don't see any reason for that change. I am assuming that
there was some additional
It appears that in commit 9d7a224b463e ("dma-direct: always allow dma mask
<= physiscal memory size") the logic of the test was changed from a "<" to
a ">=" however I don't see any reason for that change. I am assuming that
there was some additional change planned, specifically I suspect the logic
