On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:38:31PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 27/09/18 16:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 03:30:20PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote: >>>> +static gfp_t __dma_direct_optimal_gfp_mask(struct device *dev, u64 >>>> dma_mask, >>>> + u64 *phys_mask) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (force_dma_unencrypted()) >>>> + *phys_mask = __dma_to_phys(dev, dma_mask); >>>> + else >>>> + *phys_mask = dma_to_phys(dev, dma_mask); >>> >>> Maybe make phys_to_dma_direct() take u64 instead of phys_addr_t so we can >>> reuse it here? >> >> This is a dma_to_phys and not a phys_to_dma. > > Ugh, clearly it's time to stop reviewing patches for today... sorry :(
I actually made the same mistake when writing it.. ALthough I'd really like to see some feedback from you on the arm64 swiotlb series once you had more cofee ;-)