On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 03:49 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 03:31 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > >> A key problem I was hoping would be solved with your work here was > >> the > >> elimination of that post dma_map_sg() split. > >> > >> If I understood James and Ben correctly, one of the key problems was > >> always in communicating libata's segment boundary needs to the IOMMU > >> layers? > > > > Yup. If we can put some constraint in struct device that the dma mapping > > code can then look at ... we also need to ensure that what's passed in > > for DMA'ing already matches those constraints as well since no-iommu > > platforms will basically just keep the dma table as-is. > > That's a good point... no-iommu platforms would need to be updated to > do the split for me. I suppose we can steal that code from swiotlb or > somewhere.
Doing the split means being able to grow the sglist... which the dma_* calls can't do at least not in their current form. Ben. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
