Re: [PATCH] RFC: kills consistent_dma_mask

[Krzysztof Halasa]

"David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> ia64 does in fact need consistent_dma_mask.

For what?
Perhaps a file name?

> > It isn't even implemented on most platforms - only x86_64 and ia64 have
> > support for it, while on the remaining archs using it according to the
> > docs (with non-default value) could mean Oops or something like that.
> 
> The platforms where it isn't implemented simply support
> it identically to how they support the normal dma_mask.

No. This is only true if you set dma_mask = consistent_dma_mask.
If they aren't equal (and don't cover the entire RAM address space)
the thing is broken.
If they have to be equal - why we need 2 masks in the first place?

> Please read the threads in the archives that caused
> consistent_dma_mask to be added to the tree in the first
> place before you go around removing it.

I did that before posting, of course. Which archives do you mean?
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa
Network Administrator
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/