On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 08:49:30PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 06:01:41PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > I don't particularly like maintaining an arm64-specific dma-direct.h
> > either but arm64 seems to be the only architecture that needs to
> > potentially force a
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 06:01:41PM +, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> I don't particularly like maintaining an arm64-specific dma-direct.h
> either but arm64 seems to be the only architecture that needs to
> potentially force a bounce when cache_line_size() > ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN
> and the device is non-
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:48:33PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Why can't we just resolve the conflict by adding the underscores?
>
> We can solve the conflict easily that way. But that's not the point.
>
> The point is that I
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:48:33PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Why can't we just resolve the conflict by adding the underscores?
>
> We can solve the conflict easily that way. But that's not the point.
>
> The point is that I
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:48:33PM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> Why can't we just resolve the conflict by adding the underscores?
We can solve the conflict easily that way. But that's not the point.
The point is that I've been fighting hard to consolidate dma code
given that the behavior really i
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:37:20PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 19/03/18 15:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:19:04PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> >>As a heads-up, I've just realised there's now a silent (but build-breaking)
> >>conflict with the current arm64 queue brew
On 19/03/18 15:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:19:04PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
As a heads-up, I've just realised there's now a silent (but build-breaking)
conflict with the current arm64 queue brewing here, as we've unfortunately
had to reintroduce ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 03:19:04PM +, Robin Murphy wrote:
> As a heads-up, I've just realised there's now a silent (but build-breaking)
> conflict with the current arm64 queue brewing here, as we've unfortunately
> had to reintroduce ARCH_HAS_PHYS_TO_DMA as a means of being safe against an
>
On 19/03/18 10:38, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Give the basic phys_to_dma and dma_to_phys helpers a __-prefix and add
the memory encryption mask to the non-prefixed versions. Use the
__-prefixed versions directly instead of clearing the mask again in
various places.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwi
On 3/19/2018 5:38 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Give the basic phys_to_dma and dma_to_phys helpers a __-prefix and add
> the memory encryption mask to the non-prefixed versions. Use the
> __-prefixed versions directly instead of clearing the mask again in
> various places.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chr
Give the basic phys_to_dma and dma_to_phys helpers a __-prefix and add
the memory encryption mask to the non-prefixed versions. Use the
__-prefixed versions directly instead of clearing the mask again in
various places.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
arch/arm/include/asm/dma-direct.h
Give the basic phys_to_dma and dma_to_phys helpers a __-prefix and add
the memory encryption mask to the non-prefixed versions. Use the
__-prefixed versions directly instead of clearing the mask again in
various places.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig
---
arch/arm/include/asm/dma-direct.h
12 matches
Mail list logo