Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Add struct iommu_table argument to iommu_map_sg()

Olof Johansson wrote: On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:17:45PM +1000, Mark Nelson wrote: Make iommu_map_sg take a struct iommu_table. It did so before commit 740c3ce66700640a6e6136ff679b067e92125794 (iommu sg merging: ppc: make iommu respect the segment size limits). This stops the function looking i

Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Add struct iommu_table argument to iommu_map_sg()

Hi Olof, On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:54:17 -0500 Olof Johansson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Consistency is good, but I wonder if the opposite wouldn't be the better > way to go here: always just pass down just the dev pointer instead. The > table can be reached from it. I made the changes that pass

Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Add struct iommu_table argument to iommu_map_sg()

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 03:17:45PM +1000, Mark Nelson wrote: > Make iommu_map_sg take a struct iommu_table. It did so before commit > 740c3ce66700640a6e6136ff679b067e92125794 (iommu sg merging: ppc: make > iommu respect the segment size limits). > > This stops the function looking in the archdata.d

[PATCH] [POWERPC] Add struct iommu_table argument to iommu_map_sg()

Make iommu_map_sg take a struct iommu_table. It did so before commit 740c3ce66700640a6e6136ff679b067e92125794 (iommu sg merging: ppc: make iommu respect the segment size limits). This stops the function looking in the archdata.dma_data for the iommu table because in the future it will be called w