From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com
	(nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10650DDEF3
	for <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:23:29 +1100 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <45CCFF4B.7000102@freescale.com>
References: <989B956029373F45A0B8AF02970818900D444B@zch01exm26.fsl.freescale.net>
	<1170969965.2620.345.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<0640B069-F05E-4A08-A8EB-C277BEF1466E@embeddedalley.com>
	<1171058780.6578.4.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	<1EFFAE36-7396-45B5-B8F2-DD7348FBE385@kernel.crashing.org>
	<45CCFAD6.5070807@freescale.com>
	<7B89E9E3-620C-4DF5-96E7-AF05287D89DC@kernel.crashing.org>
	<45CCFF4B.7000102@freescale.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <969E3C07-96EE-4AF9-BF57-B10F049684EE@kernel.crashing.org>
From: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: Discussion about iopa()
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 17:22:34 -0600
To: Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
	<mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>


On Feb 9, 2007, at 5:10 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:

> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>> It doesn't seem like it's that big of a change.  I'd rather the  
>> code clearly do different things for MURAM vs system memory for  
>> ALL accesses.
>
> Why?  MURAM acts like RAM, it just needs to be mapped first.

It does from a coherence point of view, but not from an allocation  
mechanism.

We should fix it so the driver just has to do dma_alloc_coherent,  
dma_free_coherent, and dma_map_*/dma_unmap_*

- k