On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 20:39 -0600, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > I'd prefer so yes.
>
> Can you explain why? Got no issue with doing this, but its good to
> know hy.
Just in case ... let's not modify 64 bits behaviour especially to
something that will ultimately go away. I prefer failing if DMA ops a
On Feb 6, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 18:32 -0600, Becky Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I've been looking at converting 32-bit powerpc's DMA code over to the
>> 64-bit method, where there is a dma_ops structure inside archdata
>> that tells us which operations a d
On Feb 6, 2008, at 7:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 18:32 -0600, Becky Bruce wrote:
>>
>> I've been looking at converting 32-bit powerpc's DMA code over to the
>> 64-bit method, where there is a dma_ops structure inside archdata
>> that tells us which operations a
On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 18:32 -0600, Becky Bruce wrote:
>
> I've been looking at converting 32-bit powerpc's DMA code over to the
> 64-bit method, where there is a dma_ops structure inside archdata
> that tells us which operations a device should use for DMA. I'll be
> needing this shortly becau
Guys,
I've been looking at converting 32-bit powerpc's DMA code over to the
64-bit method, where there is a dma_ops structure inside archdata
that tells us which operations a device should use for DMA. I'll be
needing this shortly because I need to implement swiotlb to deal with
PCI and large
