[RFC PATCH 13/18] ARM: LPAE: ensure dma_addr_t is the same size as phys_addr_t

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 13:01 +0100, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:32:09 +0100
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 12:08 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Monday 25 October 2010, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > > From: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> > > >
> > > > Now that phys_addr_t can be 64-bit on ARM, we must ensure that dma_addr_t
> > > > is sufficiently large to hold physical addresses.
> > > >
> > > > This patch uses the types.h implementation in asm-generic to define the
> > > > dma_addr_t type as the same width as phys_addr_t.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon at arm.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas at arm.com>
> > >
> > > This patch will become obsolete once the "unify dma_addr_t typedef"
> > > series from Fujita Tomonori is upstream, you will instead have to set
> > > CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT.
> >
> > Yes, I know this and it's on my list to fix once I update the patches to
> > 2.6.37-rc1.
> 
> This patch also conflicts with the patchset removing dma64_addr_t (you
> really don't need dma64_addr_t):
> 
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-arch&m=128685377524976&w=2
> 
> Both in -mm and I think Andrew will merge both
> CONFIG_ARCH_DMA_ADDR_T_64BIT and dma64_addr_t patchset.
> 
> So how about dropping this patch and folding the following into your
> 18th patch. Then Andrew will not get the conflict and -rc1 works fine
> for you.

Yes, that's the plan, I was just waiting for -rc1 to rebase my patches
(given the loooong review process on the ARM list, I don't expect the
LPAE patches to be merged any time soon :)).

Thanks,

Catalin