On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 22:29 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 21:48 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:17:14AM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote:
> > > Previously, this was specified as a void *, but that's not
> > > large enough on 32-bit systems with 36-bit physical
> > > addressing support. Change the type to dma_addr_t so it
> > > will scale based on the size of a dma address.
> >
> > This looks extreml ugly to me. It seems like the typical use is to
> > store a pointer to a structure. So what about making the direct
> > dma case follow that general scheme instead?
> >
> > E.g. declare a
> >
> > struct direct_dma_data {
> > dma_addr_t direct_dma_offset;
> > };
> >
> > and have one normal instace of it, and one per weird cell device.
>
> Right, but we want to avoid a structure for the classic case of 32-bit
> systems with no iommu...
>
> I wouldn't mind doing a union here. That might be best, the patch as it stands is a horrible mess of casts. Stashing a dma_addr_t into a void * is sort of gross, but storing a pointer to some struct (a void *) in a dma_addr_t is _really_ gross :) cheers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
