On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 04:38:31PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 27/09/18 16:30, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 03:30:20PM +0100, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>>> +static gfp_t __dma_direct_optimal_gfp_mask(struct device *dev, u64
>>>> dma_mask,
>>>> + u64 *phys_mask)
>>>> +{
>>>> + if (force_dma_unencrypted())
>>>> + *phys_mask = __dma_to_phys(dev, dma_mask);
>>>> + else
>>>> + *phys_mask = dma_to_phys(dev, dma_mask);
>>>
>>> Maybe make phys_to_dma_direct() take u64 instead of phys_addr_t so we can
>>> reuse it here?
>>
>> This is a dma_to_phys and not a phys_to_dma.
>
> Ugh, clearly it's time to stop reviewing patches for today... sorry :(
I actually made the same mistake when writing it..
ALthough I'd really like to see some feedback from you on the arm64
swiotlb series once you had more cofee ;-)
