On Tue, 30 Sep 2014, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 09/30/2014 07:45 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Whether the proposed patchset is the correct solution to support it is
> > a completely different question.
>
> This patchset has been in mainline since 3.16 and has already caused
> regressions, so the question of whether this is the correct solution has
> already been answered.
Agreed.
> > So either you stop this right now and help Akinobu to find the proper
> > solution
>
> If this is only a test platform for ARM parts then I don't think it
> unreasonable to suggest forking x86 swiotlb support into a iommu=cma
> selector that gets DMA mapping working for this test platform and doesn't
> cause a bunch of breakage.
Breakage is not acceptable in any case.
> Which is different than if the plan is to ship production units for x86;
> then a general purpose solution will be required.
>
> As to the good design of a general purpose solution for allocating and
> mapping huge order pages, you are certainly more qualified to help Akinobu
> than I am.
Fair enough. Still this does not make the case for outright rejecting
the idea of supporting that kind of device even if it is a esoteric
case. We deal with enough esoteric hardware in Linux and if done
right, it's no harm to anyone.
I'll have a look at the technical details.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
iommu mailing list
iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/iommu
