On Nov 18, 2008, at 10:57 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
@@ -286,42 +306,75 @@ static inline void dma_sync_single_for_cpu(struct device *dev,dma_addr_t dma_handle, size_t size, enum dma_data_direction direction) { - BUG_ON(direction == DMA_NONE);Did you intend to remove this here? It would be nice to test for it even on platforms where the op is a nop; if there is an equivalent test in every implementation of the ops, remove it there instead (that's more source + binary code to remove, always a good thing ;-) )
You're right that we have lost this test in platforms which do not implement the sync ops, and if the test is useful, I can certainly move it. However, it will actually result in more code on the current ppc kernel, as there are 3x more dma_sync_* instances than there are actual dma_direct_* instances (and nobody else implements dma_sync_* :) Not that we're talking about a lot of code here, but it definitely won't make the kernel smaller since we just don't need a sync unless we're noncoherent which, thank <insert deity here>, is rare.
With the swiotlb case, the check needs to be in the swiotlb code because there are other architectures that use the swiotlb code that do not use a structure to get to their dma_ops like we do. IA64, for example, sets up its dma_ops using config options and #defines the names of the various dma_ functions. They don't go through a dma_ops dereference, so the (possibly redundant for us) check in the swiotlb code would need to remain.
So, the reason for moving it would be that we think it's still a useful check to have. I'm happy to move it in that case.
Thanks, -Becky _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
