Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] RFC: kills consistent_dma_mask | From | Krzysztof Halasa <> | Date | 18 Aug 2003 14:44:19 +0200 |
| |
"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> writes:
> ia64 does in fact need consistent_dma_mask.
For what? Perhaps a file name?
> > It isn't even implemented on most platforms - only x86_64 and ia64 have > > support for it, while on the remaining archs using it according to the > > docs (with non-default value) could mean Oops or something like that. > > The platforms where it isn't implemented simply support > it identically to how they support the normal dma_mask.
No. This is only true if you set dma_mask = consistent_dma_mask. If they aren't equal (and don't cover the entire RAM address space) the thing is broken. If they have to be equal - why we need 2 masks in the first place?
> Please read the threads in the archives that caused > consistent_dma_mask to be added to the tree in the first > place before you go around removing it.
I did that before posting, of course. Which archives do you mean? -- Krzysztof Halasa Network Administrator - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |