On Jun 12, 2009, at 8:27 AM, Li Yang wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:32 PM, Kumar
Gala<ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:47 AM, Li Yang-R58472 wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 3:35 AM, Li Yang wrote:
Add the mapping functions used to support direct IO memory
access of
rapidIO.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Wei <z...@zh-kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Li Yang <le...@freescale.com>
Use inbnd/outbnd instead of inb/outb which make one think of
byte level io accessors.
As I look at this I don't think this is the correct API. I
think we should be using the DMA mapping API to hide these
details. The concept of mapping like this seems to be more a
function of FSL's Address translation/mapping unit (ATMU) than
anything specific to the RIO bus standard.
This is a separate RIO block level ATMU. Although it looks like the
system level ATMU, system ATMU doesn't have the knowledge of rapidIO
target device ID. The mapping need to be dynamic, as it's easy to
have
more RIO devices than the outbound windows.
I understand that. What I'm saying is the RIO block level ATMU is a
Freescale specific detail and not part of any standard RIO bus
programming
model. We have mapping APIs that we can connect to for this via
the DMA API
layer.
Ok, I see your point now. Do you mean dma_map_*() for DMA API layer?
But in my understanding the current dma_map_*() APIs are preparing
local memory for device to access which is similar to the inbound
case. Is it suitable to also use them for mapping device's space for
CPU access? Can you give an example of using this API for Address
Translation and Mapping purpose?
Yes, I meant the dma_map_*() API. Any system with a true IOMMU uses
the dma_map_ layer as the way to do address translation.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
