On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 09:56:08AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 12:22:18PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > NAK > > > > > > We have generic devices and generic DMA mapping. libata already uses > > > the generic stuff. Now fix the platform... > > > > Nice theory but your generic helpers rely on the map functions working > > even for generic hardware that doesn't need them, so at the very least > > there is some clean up required. > > Sure there is some clean up needed -- on the arch side. > > Even !PCI dma_xxx wrappers that do nothing more than return a dma > mapping error are a valid platform implementation.
If you don't have DMA capabilities, does libata still need ->pad and ->pad_dma set? I had a problem where a pata_platform device which wasn't DMA capable failed to initialise because we quite rightfully made dma_alloc_coherent() fail (due to the DMA masks not being set.) It seems odd that libata requires DMA memory for non-DMA capable devices... -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
