Discussion about iopa()
Kumar Gala
galak at kernel.crashing.org
Sat Feb 10 09:46:57 EST 2007
On Feb 9, 2007, at 4:06 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 12:13 -0500, Dan Malek wrote:
>> On Feb 8, 2007, at 4:26 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>
>>> I'm really not fan of it.
>>
>> That's because I think it's a terribly useful function
>> and the first step toward some orthogonal VM APIs. :-)
>
> No, I think it's very inefficient to walk the page tables, even
> worse if
> you have PTEs in HIGHMEM. I think it's better to keep track the
> physical
> address from alloc time, something similar than dma_alloc_coherent but
> for use with that MURAM thingy.
My feeling is to leave the code alone until we have the dma mapping
api setup to handle MURAM. If we can't do alloc/map/free with the
same mechanism I dont see the value in just doing 'map'. It just
makes the code more confusing w/o any big gain.
Truthfully the normal system memory size should be cleaned up to use
the dma mapping API instead of straight allocations and mapping like
its using now.
- k
More information about the Linuxppc-dev
mailing list