Re: [PATCH] ppc64 iommu rewrite part 2/5

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:11:02PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> @@ -67,6 +67,14 @@
>  	 * On ia64, we ignore O_SYNC because we cannot tolerate memory attribute aliases.
>  	 */
>  	return !(efi_mem_attributes(addr) & EFI_MEMORY_WB);
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_PPC64)
> +	/* On PPC64, we always do non-cacheable access to the IO hole and
> +	 * cacheable elsewhere. Cache paradox can checkstop the CPU and
> +	 * the high_memory heuristic below is wrong on machines with memory
> +	 * above the IO hole... Ah, and of course, XFree86 doesn't pass
> +	 * O_SYNC when mapping us to tap IO space. Surprised ?
> +	 */
> +	return !page_is_ram(addr);
>  #else

Umm, can't we plaese define a hook in all pors and use it here instead
of one hack per port?

-
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/