From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E23D3C2BCA1 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 18:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9846208C0 for ; Fri, 7 Jun 2019 18:50:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="OQXTin5D" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732040AbfFGSup (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:50:45 -0400 Received: from mail-ot1-f44.google.com ([209.85.210.44]:46332 "EHLO mail-ot1-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730281AbfFGSuo (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jun 2019 14:50:44 -0400 Received: by mail-ot1-f44.google.com with SMTP id z23so2769712ote.13; Fri, 07 Jun 2019 11:50:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mtzNzCUSsxdVxTwVxd+bIYbQvGHAfnBIn5rvBFTyjR8=; b=OQXTin5D9dTshUeb7Y4bM60DsbmSUlShMmHN60dZZLL9XCDDB+ORnAUfy+Hr/bRkU4 Cv0yqr74BU8WBzsrZKhPHtnDdaY0de6HTTVhECsYW3ZFDhfnMueDBif/LMeSAfUlEn3h UDnpCbe1YcCpVwHTuEqfOdBNQpHWtDtmXLvZG2FrS/El4fO7hc1A2zcnTOFbu7C5mW/Q R8WpqASpMYH4b2zJL1KNqjkz+a3zX08H5kIsv0x12+gOBo0YS8HeS10XU5lcpnd1N66R 2jI8Uqy8aRSN0derlvny6iWoNLEhVmBJPssrItiTU/pRpjxCLC1oJG2fF5MGcFU9ZEFo EXaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mtzNzCUSsxdVxTwVxd+bIYbQvGHAfnBIn5rvBFTyjR8=; b=H0fcyPqpRI8W7Pll6j4/IMhvldc32YezU/Sf8yGbceUjERIWnOGgbV6OrxxtFS17YJ qVUOHZJCkZCwXUsfi5B0HtVTW7CGlc7KIkMM1Zzw2MmE0mwgdgogbxACAHMOkBh+XZfg itrHGeEKfY0ARVaJeUReSjD+s0rhl7cFzJENE1DHdzxx9OOnfwpVuCSM1Nn1OQWtNFhM Y118iNyOBFXk5Q3IBNJ/x1peKpZhhRn8FFmYaLP1lemZtYxNfZK99cw+/BSW3qypSB4u aHvNsi5trtOeSIyXOxHS8C3yVEuSo6sUxteVPNc+uuUpe75p5HpbTkFswXL2or0rPhYZ iSOg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXrKynw+eRPD+GSkCp2Lc6B+zGiI8i7uEfLfKqVDmiK/gfgoj6z mO3cRAX/j9EYKjc9RRJNICHvYLh3 X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqz4kHg4ws3IMu+HwC+T75hwpF0oGqhuGhXdapOMtWtwVH7DgtPV5tHN5bGG1FLCCtTfGvS7mw== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7683:: with SMTP id j3mr20795572otl.290.1559933443940; Fri, 07 Jun 2019 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.112] (cpe-24-31-245-230.kc.res.rr.com. [24.31.245.230]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w22sm1034238otp.73.2019.06.07.11.50.42 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=AEAD-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 07 Jun 2019 11:50:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [BISECTED REGRESSION] b43legacy broken on G4 PowerBook To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Aaro Koskinen , Christian Zigotzky , Michael Ellerman , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org References: <20190605225059.GA9953@darkstar.musicnaut.iki.fi> <73da300c-871c-77ac-8a3a-deac226743ef@lwfinger.net> <20190607172902.GA8183@lst.de> From: Larry Finger Message-ID: <034e6860-8fa8-0510-96c2-0cf6e6a04868@lwfinger.net> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2019 13:50:42 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190607172902.GA8183@lst.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 6/7/19 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix > it in the core. I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work. Can > you throw in a few printks what failed? I.e. did dma_direct_supported > return false? Did the actual allocation fail? I agree that that patch should not be sent upstream. I posted it only so that anyone running into the problem would have a work around. I will try to see why your patch failed. Larry