[PATCH] drivers: mmc: msm: update to new arm pfn_to_dma API
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Tue Jan 18 15:44:46 EST 2011
On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 12:22:14PM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-18 at 18:28 +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:04:04AM -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > The page_to_dma() API call was removed. It caused this build
> > > failure,
> > Because it's an API internal interface. Don't use it. Why is this
> > driver poking about in API internals all over the place?
> If it's internal why is this driver able to call it?
Many things end up like that in the kernel because of the need to balance
accessibility of stuff from header files and efficiency of implementation
We could stuff them into a separate header file, move all the DMA API
implementation into a .c file, and prevent drivers from being able to
inline those functions. They then have to have the overhead of saving
call frames onto stack, etc. Is that something you think would be
But then how would we prevent drivers including that separate header
file and regaining access to them?
Answer: you can't. So why bother making things less efficient when
there's zero benefit from doing so?
There is this comment directly above their definitions:
* dma_to_pfn/pfn_to_dma/dma_to_virt/virt_to_dma are architecture private
* functions used internally by the DMA-mapping API to provide DMA
* addresses. They must not be used by drivers.
which was preceded by this:
* page_to_dma/dma_to_virt/virt_to_dma are architecture private functions
* used internally by the DMA-mapping API to provide DMA addresses. They
* must not be used by drivers.
I have little sympathy for drivers breaking when they use stuff which is
explicitly documented that they should not use - and when there's proper
well known APIs (DMA-mapping) provided.
Can I also assume you've already read that comment, as you'd have had to
find the change to locate what the new function is called?
> > That is completely broken. Please use the official APIs - it's not
> > hard. Here's how to do it correctly:
> Can you make this into a patch and send it to David Brown ?
After I've done everything else I've got to do... which could be some
> > and when you use writel() etc afterwards, those non-cacheable writes to
> > box-> will be ordered with your device write.
> > So that's a NAK for your original patch.
> Are you given us alternative to my fix yet? I didn't see any of your
> comments touching that area?
I'm merely reporting the fact, based on a comment in the driver. I've
not looked any further to see how the driver works or what else it does,
or even whether it gets it right. Do I take it from your comment that
the driver doesn't use writel et.al. ?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel