Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 16:25 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: >>> Anyway. For now I will simply go with what 2.6.23-rc has and what >>> 2.6.21 had: No dma_set_mask anywhere in the 1394 subsystem. We can >>> revisit this whenever an actual need arises. >> Not sure this is a very good idea. This seems rather likely to fail on >> x86_64 machines with >4GB of RAM for example.. > > Would it ? Isn't the default DMA mask for PCI devices set to 32 bits > anyway ? In which case, swiotlb will take care of the matter. > > Cheers, > Ben.
Hmm, that's true, yes. Suppose it shouldn't be a problem then. I would agree, though, that sbp2 isn't really the place for setting this, since the DMA mask is presently a property of the device, not of the user.. -- Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada To email, remove "nospam" from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/ _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
