Expand the dma_mask of fsldma device to 36-bit, indicating that the
DMA engine can deal with 36-bit physical address and does not need
the SWIOTLB to create bounce buffer for it when doing dma_map_*().
Signed-off-by: Li Yang
---
Add more detailed commit message
drivers/dma/fsldma.c |4 +++-
On Nov 11, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Li Yang wrote:
> Expand the dma_mask of fsldma device to 36-bit, indicating that the
> DMA engine can deal with 36-bit physical address and does not need
> the SWIOTLB to create bounce buffer for it when doing dma_map_*().
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Yang
> ---
> Add more
>Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] fsldma: add support to 36-bit physical address
>
>
>On Nov 11, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Li Yang wrote:
>
>> Expand the dma_mask of fsldma device to 36-bit, indicating that the
>> DMA engine can deal with 36-bit physical address and does not need the
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Is there any reason we shouldn't set DMA_BIT_MASK(64) since the DMA block
> programming model allows the address to be 64-bits?
Can you explain that? The DMA registers only have room for 36 bits
for the physical address.
--
Timur Tabi
Linu
On Nov 13, 2010, at 4:43 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 5:56 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>> Is there any reason we shouldn't set DMA_BIT_MASK(64) since the DMA block
>> programming model allows the address to be 64-bits?
>
> Can you explain that? The DMA registers only have room
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> The programming model (if you look at the free-space in the registers and
> data structures) supports a 64-bit address. I'm trying to avoid changing the
> driver in the future if we have >36-bit. However this is such a minor worry
> that I
On Nov 11, 2010, at 6:16 AM, Li Yang wrote:
> Expand the dma_mask of fsldma device to 36-bit, indicating that the
> DMA engine can deal with 36-bit physical address and does not need
> the SWIOTLB to create bounce buffer for it when doing dma_map_*().
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Yang
> ---
> Add more
On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>> The programming model (if you look at the free-space in the registers and
>> data structures) supports a 64-bit address. I'm trying to avoid changing
>> the driver in the future if we ha
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 11:43:12 -0600
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Kumar Gala
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The programming model (if you look at the free-space in the registers and
> >> data structures) supports a 64-bit ad
