On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 10:56:39PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > Dnia środa 13 kwiecień 2011 o 20:32:31 Russell King - ARM Linux > napisał(a): > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:52:31PM +0200, Janusz Krzysztofik wrote: > > > Taking into account that I'm just trying to fix a regression, and > > > not invent a new, long term solution: are you able to name an ARM > > > based board which a) is already supported in 2.6.39, b) is (or can > > > be) equipped with a device supported by a V4L driver which uses > > > videobuf- dma-config susbsystem, c) has a bus structure with which > > > virt_to_phys(bus_to_virt(dma_handle)) is not equal dma_handle? > > > > I have no idea - and why should whether someone can name something > > that may break be a justification to allow something which is > > technically wrong? > > > > Surely it should be the other way around - if its technically wrong > > and _may_ break something then it shouldn't be allowed. > > In theory - of course. In practice - couldn't we now, close to -rc3, > relax the rules a little bit and stop bothering with something that may > break in the future if it doesn't break on any board supported so far (I > hope)?
If we are worried about closeness to -final, then what should happen is that the original commit is reverted; the "fix" for IOMMUs resulted in a regression for existing users which isn't trivial to resolve without risking possible breakage of other users. Do we even know whether bus_to_virt(iommu_bus_address) works? I suspect it doesn't, so by doing so you're already re-breaking the IOMMU case. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
