Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 16:25 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
>>> Anyway.  For now I will simply go with what 2.6.23-rc has and what
>>> 2.6.21 had:  No dma_set_mask anywhere in the 1394 subsystem.  We can
>>> revisit this whenever an actual need arises.
>> Not sure this is a very good idea. This seems rather likely to fail on
>> x86_64 machines with >4GB of RAM for example.. 
> 
> Would it ? Isn't the default DMA mask for PCI devices set to 32 bits
> anyway ? In which case, swiotlb will take care of the matter.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.

Hmm, that's true, yes. Suppose it shouldn't be a problem then.

I would agree, though, that sbp2 isn't really the place for setting 
this, since the DMA mask is presently a property of the device, not of 
the user..

-- 
Robert Hancock      Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from hancockr@nospamshaw.ca
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/


-
unsubscribe notice
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/