On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 08:32:12AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> There is no implementation of the DMA_ATTR_WRITE_BARRIER flag left
> now that the ia64 sn2 code has been removed. Drop the flag and the
> calling convention to set it in the RDMA code.
Applied to rdma.git for-next
There were a
On 13.11.2019 22:11, David Miller wrote:
> From: Laurentiu Tudor
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2019 12:24:17 +
>
>> From: Laurentiu Tudor
>>
>> This series introduces a few new dma unmap and sync api variants that,
>> on top of what the originals do, return the virtual address
>> corresponding to the
On Wed, 2019-11-13 at 20:34 +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 13/11/2019 4:13 pm, Nicolas Saenz Julienne wrote:
> > Using a mask to represent bus DMA constraints has a set of limitations.
> > The biggest one being it can only hold a power of two (minus one). The
> > DMA mapping code is already aware
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> Support for calling the DMA API functions without a valid device pointer
> was removed a while ago, so remove the stale support for that from the
> powerpc __phys_to_dma / __dma_to_phys helpers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/dma
Christoph Hellwig writes:
> Currently each architectures that wants to override dma_to_phys and
> phys_to_dma also has to provide dma_capable. But there isn't really
> any good reason for that. powerpc and mips just have copies of the
> generic one minus the latests fix, and the arm one was the
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 01:14:11PM +0800, Lu Baolu wrote:
> Could you please educate me what dma_supported() is exactly for? Will
> it always get called during boot? When will it be called?
->dma_supported is set when setting either the dma_mask or
dma_coherent_mask. These days it serves too prima
