Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2][BNX2]: Add iSCSI support to BNX2 devices.

From: Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 03:31:55 -0400

FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> Yeah, we could nicely handle lld's restrictions (especially with
> stacking devices). But iommu code needs only max_segment_size and
> seg_boundary_mask, right? If so, the first simple approach to add two
> values to device structure is not so bad, I think.

(replying to slightly older email in the thread)
(added benh, since we've discussed this issue in the past)

dumb question, what happened to seg_boundary_mask?

If you look at drivers/ata/libata-core.c:ata_fill_sg(), you will note 
that we split s/g segments after DMA-mapping.  Looking at libata LLDD's, 
you will also note judicious use of ATA_DMA_BOUNDARY (0xffff).

It was drilled into my head by James and benh that I cannot rely on the 
DMA boundary + block/scsi + dma_map_sg() to ensure that my S/G segments 
never cross a 64K boundary, a legacy IDE requirement.  Thus the 
additional code in ata_fill_sg() to split S/G segments straddling 64K, 
in addition to setting dma boundary to 0xffff.

A key problem I was hoping would be solved with your work here was the 
elimination of that post dma_map_sg() split.

If I understood James and Ben correctly, one of the key problems was 
always in communicating libata's segment boundary needs to the IOMMU layers?

	Jeff