On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 03:49 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
quoted text
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 03:31 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> A key problem I was hoping would be solved with your work here was
> >> the 
> >> elimination of that post dma_map_sg() split.
> >>
> >> If I understood James and Ben correctly, one of the key problems was 
> >> always in communicating libata's segment boundary needs to the IOMMU
> >> layers?
> > 
> > Yup. If we can put some constraint in struct device that the dma mapping
> > code can then look at ... we also need to ensure that what's passed in
> > for DMA'ing already matches those constraints as well since no-iommu
> > platforms will basically just keep the dma table as-is.
> 
> That's a good point...  no-iommu platforms would need to be updated to 
> do the split for me.  I suppose we can steal that code from swiotlb or 
> somewhere.

Doing the split means being able to grow the sglist... which the dma_*
calls can't do at least not in their current form.

Ben.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html