This patchset is minor cleanups for swiotlb. It doesn't confilict with
the swiotlb fixes for the x86 tree (that I've just sent):

http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/8/30

This can be cleanly applied to tip/master and tip/x86/iommu.

Ingo, can you apply this to your tree?



--

[ message continues ]

We always need swiotlb memory here so address_needs_mapping and
swiotlb_force testings are irrelevant. map_single should be used here
instead of swiotlb_map_single.

Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
---
 lib/swiotlb.c |    7 ++-----
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
index 3066ffe..2fb485d 100644
--- a/lib/swiotlb.c
+++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
@@ -483,12 +483,9 @@ swiotlb_alloc_coherent(struct device *hwdev, size_t size,
 		 * swiotlb_map_single(), which will grab memory from
 		 * the lowest available address range.
 		 */
-		dma_addr_t handle;
-		handle = swiotlb_map_single(NULL, NULL, size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
-		if (swiotlb_dma_mapping_error(hwdev, handle))
+		ret = map_single(hwdev, NULL, size, DMA_FROM_DEVICE);
+		if (!ret)
 			return NULL;
-
-		ret = bus_to_virt(handle);
 	}
 
 	memset(ret, 0, size);
-- 
1.5.5.GIT

--

[ message continues ]

We don't need any check in swiotlb_unmap_single here. unmap_single is
appropriate.

Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
---
 lib/swiotlb.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
index 2fb485d..bf61c73 100644
--- a/lib/swiotlb.c
+++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
@@ -513,7 +513,7 @@ swiotlb_free_coherent(struct device *hwdev, size_t size, void *vaddr,
 		free_pages((unsigned long) vaddr, get_order(size));
 	else
 		/* DMA_TO_DEVICE to avoid memcpy in unmap_single */
-		swiotlb_unmap_single (hwdev, dma_handle, size, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
+		unmap_single(hwdev, vaddr, size, DMA_TO_DEVICE);
 }
 
 static void
-- 
1.5.5.GIT

--

[ message continues ]

This adds is_swiotlb_buffer() helper function to see whether a buffer
belongs to the swiotlb buffer or not.

Signed-off-by: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
---
 lib/swiotlb.c |   14 +++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/lib/swiotlb.c b/lib/swiotlb.c
index bf61c73..b5f5d11 100644
--- a/lib/swiotlb.c
+++ b/lib/swiotlb.c
@@ -283,6 +283,11 @@ address_needs_mapping(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t addr)
 	return (addr & ~mask) != 0;
 }
 
+static int is_swiotlb_buffer(char *addr)
+{
+	return addr >= io_tlb_start && addr < io_tlb_end;
+}
+
 /*
  * Allocates bounce buffer and returns its kernel virtual address.
  */
@@ -508,8 +513,7 @@ swiotlb_free_coherent(struct device *hwdev, size_t size, void *vaddr,
 		      dma_addr_t dma_handle)
 {
 	WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
-	if (!(vaddr >= (void *)io_tlb_start
-                    && vaddr < (void *)io_tlb_end))
+	if (!is_swiotlb_buffer(vaddr))
 		free_pages((unsigned long) vaddr, get_order(size));
 	else
 		/* DMA_TO_DEVICE to avoid memcpy in unmap_single */
@@ -602,7 +606,7 @@ swiotlb_unmap_single_attrs(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t dev_addr,
 	char *dma_addr = bus_to_virt(dev_addr);
 
 	BUG_ON(dir == DMA_NONE);
-	if (dma_addr >= io_tlb_start && dma_addr < io_tlb_end)
+	if (is_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr))
 		unmap_single(hwdev, dma_addr, size, dir);
 	else if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
 		dma_mark_clean(dma_addr, size);
@@ -632,7 +636,7 @@ swiotlb_sync_single(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t dev_addr,
 	char *dma_addr = bus_to_virt(dev_addr);
 
 	BUG_ON(dir == DMA_NONE);
-	if (dma_addr >= io_tlb_start && dma_addr < io_tlb_end)
+	if (is_swiotlb_buffer(dma_addr))
 		sync_single(hwdev, dma_addr, size, dir, target);
 	else if (dir == DMA_FROM_DEVICE)
 		dma_mark_clean(dma_addr, size);
@@ -663,7 +667,7 @@ swiotlb_sync_single_range(struct device *hwdev, dma_addr_t dev_addr,
 	char *dma_addr = bus_to_virt(dev_addr) + offset;
 
 	BUG_ON(dir == DMA_NONE);
-	if (dma_addr ...
[ message continues ]

applied to tip/x86/iommu, thanks!

Tony, since ia64 makes use of CONFIG_SWIOTLB, do you have any objections 
to carrying these patches in tip/x86/iommu?

	Ingo
--

[ message continues ]

No objections from me.

-Tony
--

[ message continues ]