On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:14:25 +0100
Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:04:36 +
> Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > No, I think GFP_DMA is for legacy ISA DMA and other DMA controllers
> > > with addressing limitations. The PDC is capable of accessin
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:04:36 +
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, I think GFP_DMA is for legacy ISA DMA and other DMA controllers
> > with addressing limitations. The PDC is capable of accessing the full
> > 32-bit physical address space on both AT91 and AVR32, so no special DMA
> > f
> No, I think GFP_DMA is for legacy ISA DMA and other DMA controllers
> with addressing limitations. The PDC is capable of accessing the full
> 32-bit physical address space on both AT91 and AVR32, so no special DMA
> flags are needed.
For kernel coherent DMA buffers use the dma_ API to allocate t
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:52:55 +0100
Marc Pignat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:18:38 +0100
> ...
> > GFP_DMA doesn't have anything to do with alignment, AFAIK.
> I don't even know if it does something for at91 or avr32
On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:18:38 +0100
...
> GFP_DMA doesn't have anything to do with alignment, AFAIK.
I don't even know if it does something for at91 or avr32, but there is a flag
for dma memory, so we should use it.
...
> No, please don't. I
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:18:38 +0100
Marc Pignat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Ok, but then any power of two larger than the cache line size should be
> > fine, assuming kmalloc() returns a properly aligned buffer.
> Yes. The memory should b
Hi!
On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:30:32 +0100
> Marc Pignat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
...
>
> Ok, but then any power of two larger than the cache line size should be
> fine, assuming km
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:30:32 +0100
Marc Pignat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Right. Does that mean I shouldn't Cc it on patches?
> extract from the linux-arm-kernel 'Mailing List Etiquette':
> 10. Cross-posting between linux-ar
Hi!
On Wednesday 23 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:52:43 +0100
> Marc Pignat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi!
> >
> > I removed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from cc, it is a
> > subscriber-only list.
>
> Right. Does that mean I shouldn't Cc it on patches?
extract from
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 17:52:43 +0100
Marc Pignat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I removed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from cc, it is a
> subscriber-only list.
Right. Does that mean I shouldn't Cc it on patches?
> On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > From: Chip Coldwell <[EMAIL PR
Hi!
I removed [EMAIL PROTECTED] from cc, it is a
subscriber-only list.
On Tuesday 22 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> From: Chip Coldwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
...
> @@ -47,6 +50,11 @@
>
> #include "atmel_serial.h"
>
> +#define SUPPORT_PDC
> +#define PDC_BUFFER_SIZE (L1_C
From: Chip Coldwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch is based on the DMA-patch by Chip Coldwell for the
AT91/AT32 serial USARTS, with some tweaks to make it apply neatly on
top of the other patches in this series.
The RX and TX code has been moved to a tasklet and reworked a bit.
Instead of dependi
12 matches
Mail list logo
