Re: USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

[Alan Stern]

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Greg KH wrote:

> Yeah, I really don't want to have to change every driver in different
> ways just depending on if someone thinks it is going to need to run on
> this wierd hardware.

It's not weird hardware, as far as I know.  It's just a 64-bit system
with a 32-bit USB host controller.

(And remember, while there are 64-bit EHCI controllers, there are not 
any 64-bit OHCI or UHCI controllers.  So whenever somebody plugs a 
full-speed or low-speed device into a 64-bit machine, they will face 
this problem.  It's like the old problem of ISA devices that could 
only do DMA to addresses in the first 16 MB of memory -- what the 
original GFP_DMA flag was intended for.)

> Alan, any objection to just using usb_buffer_alloc() for every driver?
> Or is that too much overhead?

I don't know what the overhead is.  But usb_buffer_alloc() requires the 
caller to keep track of the buffer's DMA address, so it's not a simple 
plug-in replacement.  In addition, the consistent memory that 
usb_buffer_alloc() provides is a scarce resource on some platforms.

Writing new functions is the way to go.

Alan Stern

--
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/