diff --git a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c
index 9c49a46..0569de6 100644
--- a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c
+++ b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c
@@ -579,7 +579,36 @@
 
 	sachip->dev->coherent_dma_mask &= sa1111_dma_mask[drac >> 2];
 }
+#endif
 
+#ifdef CONFIG_DMABOUNCE
+/*
+ * According to the "Intel StrongARM SA-1111 Microprocessor Companion
+ * Chip Specification Update" (June 2000), erratum #7, there is a
+ * significant bug in the SA1111 SDRAM shared memory controller.  If
+ * an access to a region of memory above 1MB relative to the bank base,
+ * it is important that address bit 10 _NOT_ be asserted. Depending
+ * on the configuration of the RAM, bit 10 may correspond to one
+ * of several different (processor-relative) address bits.
+ *
+ * This routine only identifies whether or not a given DMA address
+ * is susceptible to the bug.
+ *
+ * This should only get called for sa1111_device types due to the
+ * way we configure our device dma_masks.
+ */
+static int sa1111_needs_bounce(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size)
+{
+	/*
+	 * Section 4.6 of the "Intel StrongARM SA-1111 Development Module
+	 * User's Guide" mentions that jumpers R51 and R52 control the
+	 * target of SA-1111 DMA (either SDRAM bank 0 on Assabet, or
+	 * SDRAM bank 1 on Neponset). The default configuration selects
+	 * Assabet, so any address in bank 1 is necessarily invalid.
+	 */
+	return (machine_is_assabet() || machine_is_pfs168()) &&
+		(addr >= 0xc8000000 || (addr + size) >= 0xc8000000);
+}
 #endif
 
 static void sa1111_dev_release(struct device *_dev)
@@ -644,7 +673,8 @@
 		dev->dev.dma_mask = &dev->dma_mask;
 
 		if (dev->dma_mask != 0xffffffffUL) {
-			ret = dmabounce_register_dev(&dev->dev, 1024, 4096);
+			ret = dmabounce_register_dev(&dev->dev, 1024, 4096,
+					sa1111_needs_bounce);
 			if (ret) {
 				dev_err(&dev->dev, "SA1111: Failed to register"
 					" with dmabounce\n");
@@ -818,34 +848,6 @@
 	kfree(sachip);
 }
 
-/*
- * According to the "Intel StrongARM SA-1111 Microprocessor Companion
- * Chip Specification Update" (June 2000), erratum #7, there is a
- * significant bug in the SA1111 SDRAM shared memory controller.  If
- * an access to a region of memory above 1MB relative to the bank base,
- * it is important that address bit 10 _NOT_ be asserted. Depending
- * on the configuration of the RAM, bit 10 may correspond to one
- * of several different (processor-relative) address bits.
- *
- * This routine only identifies whether or not a given DMA address
- * is susceptible to the bug.
- *
- * This should only get called for sa1111_device types due to the
- * way we configure our device dma_masks.
- */
-int dma_needs_bounce(struct device *dev, dma_addr_t addr, size_t size)
-{
-	/*
-	 * Section 4.6 of the "Intel StrongARM SA-1111 Development Module
-	 * User's Guide" mentions that jumpers R51 and R52 control the
-	 * target of SA-1111 DMA (either SDRAM bank 0 on Assabet, or
-	 * SDRAM bank 1 on Neponset). The default configuration selects
-	 * Assabet, so any address in bank 1 is necessarily invalid.
-	 */
-	return ((machine_is_assabet() || machine_is_pfs168()) &&
-		(addr >= 0xc8000000 || (addr + size) >= 0xc8000000));
-}
-
 struct sa1111_save_data {
 	unsigned int	skcr;
 	unsigned int	skpcr;