Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-02-11 14:39:38)
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 20:03, Chris Wilson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Quoting Matthew Auld (2019-01-30 19:18:25)
> > > Break on NULL iter.sgp, rather than dmap == 0, on the off chance that we
> > > have some hypothetical selftest or similar in the future that considers
> > > dmap = 0 to be perfectly valid.
> >
> > 0 == DMA_MAPPING_ERROR
>
> Ah, I have DMA_MAPPING_ERROR (~(dma_addr_t)0), and I guess zero is
> also invalid...
>
> >
> > It wouldn't be a dma iterator at that point.
> >
> > for_each_sgt_device_addr, _daddr?
>
> Do you mean just rename it to say for_each_sgt_device_addr, or
> introduce a new helper with that name?
>
> So say in ggtt_insert_entries:
>
> if (something)
> for_each_sgt_device_addr() {}
> else
> for_each_sgt_dma() {}
If our vfuncs naturally split down into different semantics then keeping
both around can prove useful. If not, let's just call it device_addr and
move on.
I hope it's the former, as we may need to review some contention over
dma-mapping apis and so knowing what semantics apply will be useful.
(Perhaps an alternative would be to start ring-fencing x86-only code so
that we have some excuse to our abuses.)
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
