From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:25:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:24:50 -0400 Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com ([63.229.232.106]:25875 "EHLO aslan.scsiguy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 09:24:40 -0400 Message-Id: <200108221324.f7MDOTY10490@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: Jens Axboe cc: Stephan von Krawczynski , Daniel Phillips , linux-kernel Subject: Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch (was: aic7xxx with 2.4.9 on 7899P) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Aug 2001 08:46:49 +0200." <20010822084649.F604@suse.de> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 07:24:29 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >On Tue, Aug 21 2001, Justin T. Gibbs wrote: >> [...] Unfortunately the x86 port >> doesn't support passing large dma addresses to drivers so bouncing is requir >ed >> in order to do PAE. > >With the PCI64 + highmem no-bounce patches it does, so feel free to >convert aic7xxx to the newpci64 API :-) Is this somehow different than how large DMA is done on the ia64 port? All I do is look at the size of dma_addr_t to decide whether to enable high address support in my driver. If dma_addr_t's size changes, then 64bit addressing will work the same as on every other Linux port. -- Justin