Re: 2.6.26-rc1 regression: ISA DMA broken (bisected)

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Wednesday 14 May 2008 06:46:44 am Rene Herman wrote:
> On 14-05-08 01:18, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday 13 May 2008 11:33:25 am Rene Herman wrote:
> 
> >> No, isa_device is its own thing, on its own isa_bus (*). It has a struct 
> >> device * readily available though...
> >>
> >> (*) drivers/base/isa.c, and explanatory changelog at:
> >>
> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=a5117ba7da37deb09df5eb802dace229b3fb1e9f
> > 
> > Thanks for the nice changelog.
> > 
> > isa_register_driver() currently doesn't set a DMA mask.  Should it?
> 
> If it's going to be useful, definitely. The attached does not just set
> 
>    dev->dma_mask = &dev->coherent_dma_mask
> 
> as in the fallback_dev when dma_alloc_coherent() is passed a NULL device 
> only due to the mask juggling in snd_dma_hack_alloc_coherent() (which 
> wouldn't break, but...) but introduces its own copy in struct isa_dev 
> same as struct pnp_dev. As far as I'm aware, there's no actual reason 
> for keeping it other than that and if the hack could go I'd rather lose 
> the private mask copy again also.
> 
> (the device model still uses a plain u64 by the way but I guess the 
> clean type would be a dma64_addr_t)
> 
> Inlining is whitespace-failing here. Patch itself is trivial...
> 
> > I only see about 35 dma_alloc_coherent() calls that pass NULL.  I 
> > guess even those would be a fair amount of work to change, and I 
> > suppose there would be more that I missed.
> 
> At least the ALSA one isn't passing a literal NULL it seems. But yes, 
> current NULL-hack reinstatement (it's been merged by Linus already) is 
> definitely the correct fix for now.
> 
> Would like a comment on the snd_dma_hack_alloc_coherent thing first (no 
> signoff...) but other than that I'll submit this in preparation for it 
> being useful, I guess?

Yes, I like this patch.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/