On 2013/05/23 18:47, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 03:47:13AM +0100, Damian Hobson-Garcia wrote: >> Hi Catalin, >> On 2013/05/22 18:47, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> 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? >> >> CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_ATTRS is currently used to enable the functions to >> set/get the DMA attribute values. Poking through the headers, it looks >> like the struct dma_attrs is defined regardless of the >> CONFIG_HAVE_DMA_ATTRS setting, so in that respect >> we always seem to "have" DMA attributes (if we have DMA), but they may >> not always be meaningful (ie. set to some value). > > My point was about the commit log - grep'ing the kernel for > CONFIG_HAVE_DMA did not return anything. > Oh yes, my mistake. It should be CONFIG_HAS_DMA instead of CONFIG_HAVE_DMA. I'll update it. Damian -- Damian Hobson-Garcia IGEL Co.,Ltd http://www.igel.co.jp -- 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
