From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262690AbTJJUJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:09:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262732AbTJJUJX (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:09:23 -0400 Received: from mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net ([151.164.30.28]:18073 "EHLO mta4.rcsntx.swbell.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262690AbTJJUJN (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Oct 2003 16:09:13 -0400 Message-ID: <3F87137A.5040807@pacbell.net> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:15:54 -0700 From: David Brownell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20030225 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Kokshaysky CC: mru@users.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: USB and DMA on Alpha with 2.6.0-test7 References: <3F86E9D7.9020104@pacbell.net> <20031010221919.A650@den.park.msu.ru> <20031010225957.A764@den.park.msu.ru> In-Reply-To: <20031010225957.A764@den.park.msu.ru> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ivan Kokshaysky wrote: > > Sigh. The generic dma_* stuff wasn't a well thought-out idea, > and it's too late to change it in 2.6. :-( The API is more reasonable than the "all is PCI" assumption from that "asm-generic" implementation. I think it should be reasonable to update any architecture's implementation there. > Right now calling dma_* functions for non-busmaster devices > just *doesn't work*. See the patch I posted for dma_supported(), which should make that one behave. It's obvious how to generalize that specific call with a platform_dma_supported(). USB won't care about the other dma_* functions ... though it does suck that all non-PCI ohci-hcd code still needs use the "fake PCI" kluges. (Proof that the implementation of those APIs is still only usable with PCI.) For other functions, it seems you're mostly saying that some drivers are missing tests for non-null dma_mask pointers. > David, do you mind applying that? Yes, because that's nowhere near where the bugs are! Also, it's good to get rid of BUG()s ... and better to get rid of them when they're broken like that one is. - Dave