On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 12:15:38PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 03:57:11PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2002 at 02:29:28PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > > > > > In attempting to make consistent_alloc/free() work sensibly on > > > processors which are cache coherent I ran into a problem. > > > consistent_free() doesn't take a size argument. We don't need it in > > > the case of not cache coherent processors - in that case > > > consistent_alloc() sets up a vm_area() so there's enough information > > > to get the size. However for cache coherent processors we probably > > > want consistent_alloc() to degenerate to __get_free_pages(), in which > > > case consistent_free() must degenerate to free_pages(), which takes a > > > size argument. > > > > > > I suggest we change consistent_free() to take the virtual addresss, > > > size and the physical address (dma_addr_t), which will make our > > > consistent_free() match the one on ARM. I know we don't need the > > > third argument in any existing situation. > > > > > > Patch coming... > > > > As promised... > > > > This boots up fine on my EP405PC board, and I'm sending this mail from > > my TiBook running 2_4_devel with this patch and also the 40x large > > page PMD patch. > > Again, silence reigns. Anyone who would object to this being applied > to the linuxppc-2.5 tree, speak up now.
If we're going to touch this, can you look at the current ARM version of it and grab all of the goodies they've got now? I almost had this going (and I can shoot you the patch off the list if you like) but haven't had time to go back to it. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
