On Nov 13, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> 
>> Is there any reason we shouldn't set DMA_BIT_MASK(64) since the DMA block programming model allows the address to be 64-bits?
> 
> Can you explain that?  The DMA registers only have room for 36 bits
> for the physical address.

The programming model (if you look at the free-space in the registers and data structures) supports a 64-bit address.  I'm trying to avoid changing the driver in the future if we have >36-bit.  However this is such a minor worry that I'll stop and just ack the patch as is.

- k--
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/