Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 23:28:13 +0200 From: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> To: Robert Noland <rnoland@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r192026 - head/share/man/man9 Message-ID: <20090512212813.GF1158@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <1242162786.1755.51.camel@balrog.2hip.net> References: <200905122056.n4CKuYpZ032804@svn.freebsd.org> <1242162786.1755.51.camel@balrog.2hip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 04:13:06PM -0500, Robert Noland wrote: > On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 20:56 +0000, Marius Strobl wrote: > > Author: marius > > Date: Tue May 12 20:56:34 2009 > > New Revision: 192026 > > URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/192026 > > > > Log: > > Correct r190283 (partially reverting it) as on sparc64 BUS_DMA_NOCACHE > > actually is only valid for bus_dmamap_load(). > > Ok, this is getting very confusing... This means that code has to set > this flag on both alloc and load to allow for somethine resembling > consistent behavior. > Personally I don't understand why amd64 and i386 where decided to implement BUS_DMA_NOCACHE for bus_dmamem_alloc(9) only as this is less flexible than using it with bus_dmamap_load(9) (which also is the older existing implementation). Anyway, <sys/bus_dma.h> documents BUS_DMA_NOCACHE and BUS_DMA_NOWRITE as "non-standard or specific to only certain architectures" so I think it's okay for the usage of these flags to differ across them. Marius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090512212813.GF1158>