On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 10:41:04AM -0400, Alex Deucher wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 11:32:31AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> 02.10.09 20:42 >>>
> >> >On 10/02/09 10:23, Boris Derzhavets wrote:
> >> >> Jeremy,
> >> >> Please, be aware of bugzilla.xensource.com [1519] the most recent
> >> >> entries :-
> >> >>
> >> >> http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1519
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Ah, OK. I pushed a variant of Konrad's patches. Could you try them out?
> >>
> >> Are you really convinced fixing this in DRM is the right thing to do? To
> >> me, the use of vmalloc_32() in drivers/ieee1394/ seems to make similar
> >> assumptions (pci_map_sg() not modifying the buffer addresses), and
> >> who knows where else such assumptions exist. After all, vmalloc_32()
> >> is *defined* to have the property assumed by both of the users, and
> >> other than for most kmalloc() cases using GFP_DMA{,32} we're talking
> >> about double buffering generally large amounts of data here even in
> >> the cases where the DMA API is being used properly.
> >
> > I was chatting with Jeremy about this, and I realized that in some
> > sense the radeon driver assumes that physical != bus addresses. Which is
> > OK on x86, but if this card was ever moved to a Sun box it would fail.
> >
>
> FWIW, the radeon drm has been working fine on both sparc and ppc for years.
Thank you for keeping me honest!
I thought that the IOMMU on those boxes would return physical != bus addresses?
Maybe those days are long gone?
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home