Subject: Re: Regarding consistent_alloc

From: Matt Porter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 11:52:06 -0700

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 07:15:15PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 05:08:22PM +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > that's a problem with m8xx_cpm_hostalloc() (or how you are using it) if
> > it doesn't keep around the values you need.
> >
>
> Yes and no, someone changed the m8xx_cpm_hostalloc() implementation and now
> it does not behave as it used to. Earlier both __pa(adr) and __va(__pa(adr))
> worked on addresses returned by m8xx_cpm_hostalloc().
>
> I think in it's current form it's useless and should either be changed back to what
> it was or die.

The 8xx-specific stuff is clearly Dan's area...I was just commenting
on your generic concerns about consistent_*.

Regards,
--
Matt Porter
[email-masked]
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/