From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Oct 27 13:54:42 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E398516A41F;
	Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:54:42 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4583A43D45;
	Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:54:41 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from [192.168.254.204] ([192.168.254.204]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j9RDscsC072099;
	Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:54:38 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Message-ID: <4360DC20.90700@samsco.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:54:40 -0600
From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050615
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dinesh Nair <dinesh@alphaque.com>
References: <435E3003.4050609@alphaque.com>	<200510251610.53127.jhb@freebsd.org>
	<435F1E77.30007@alphaque.com> <200510261320.16175.jhb@freebsd.org>
	<435FE416.1050703@samsco.org> <43606A0F.5000704@alphaque.com>
In-Reply-To: <43606A0F.5000704@alphaque.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed 
	version=3.1.0
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on pooker.samsco.org
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: correct use of bus_dmamap_sync
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:54:43 -0000

Dinesh Nair wrote:
> 
> On 10/27/05 04:16 Scott Long said the following:
> 
>>>> an example would be using 
>>>> (BUS_DMASYNC_POSTREAD|BUS_DMASYNC_PREWRITE) which
>>>> would be 0x03 in freebsd 4.x and 0x06 in freebsd 5.x. the gotcha is 
>>>> that
>>>> 0x03 in freebsd 4.x is BUS_DMASYNC_POSTWRITE. so therefore,
>>>> BUS_DMASYNC_POSTREAD|BUS_DMASYNC_PREWRITE will be 
>>>> BUS_DMASYNC_POSTWRITE in
>>>> 4.x which in the syscall is actually a no op.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, that is fugly.  Just don't use the | versions for now I would 
>>> guess.
>>
>>
>> Trying to maintain source compatibility between 4.x and 5.x/6.x will 
>> make you encounter a whole lot more problems than just this.
> 
> 
> could you elaborate on what busdma related problems there'd be, between 
> 4.x and 5.x/6.x ? do, for example, the inner workings of the bus_dma* 
> syscalls work the same on both ?
> 

I was speaking about driver code in general.  For busdma specifically,
the only difference is the extra arguments to bus_dma_tag_create().

Scott