On Nov 13, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Timur Tabi wrote: > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: > >> Is there any reason we shouldn't set DMA_BIT_MASK(64) since the DMA block >> programming model allows the address to be 64-bits? > > Can you explain that? The DMA registers only have room for 36 bits > for the physical address.
The programming model (if you look at the free-space in the registers and data structures) supports a 64-bit address. I'm trying to avoid changing the driver in the future if we have >36-bit. However this is such a minor worry that I'll stop and just ack the patch as is. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
