On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:37:17AM +0100, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
> Hello,
> On 2013/04/30 12:01, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote:
> > Most architectures that define CONFIG_HAVE_DMA=y, have implementations for
> > both dma_alloc_attrs() and dma_free_attrs(). All achitectures that do
> > not define CONFIG_HAVE_DMA also have both of these definitions provided by
> > dma-mapping-broken.h.
BTW, shouldn't this be called CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_ATTRS?
> > Provide a default definition for the archs that define CONFIG_HAVE_DMA=y,
> > but have no implementation for dma_{alloc,free}_attrs().
> >
> > As I don't have hardware for any of these systems, the patches are only
> > compile-tested where I could (arm64, s390) and untested for the archs
> > where I couldn't find a readily available prebuilt cross-compiler (c6x, parisc).
>
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 17 +++++++++++------
> > arch/c6x/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 3 +++
> > arch/parisc/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 3 +++
> > arch/s390/include/asm/dma-mapping.h | 17 +++++++++++------
> > 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Since this series spans several architectures, what would be the best
> way to have this patch series merged?
> Should I resubmit each patch to the mailing list for each architecture
> separately?
I'm happy to take the arm64 patch.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-parisc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
