lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: [RFC] generic device DMA implementation
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 23:26, James Bottomley wrote:
    > adam@yggdrasil.com said:
    > > This makes me lean infinitesmally more toward a parameter to
    > > dma_alloc rather than a separate dma_alloc_not_necessarily_consistent
    > > function, because if there ever are other dma_alloc variations that we
    > > want to support, it is more likely that there may be overlap between
    > > the users of those features and then the number of different function
    > > calls would have to grow exponentially (or we might then talk about
    > > changing the API again, which is not the end of the world, but is
    > > certainly more difficult than not having to do so).
    >
    > I think I like this.
    >
    > how about dma_alloc to take two flags
    >
    > DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY
    >
    > and
    > DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY
    > DRIVER_SUPPORTS_NON_CONSISTENT
    >

    I rather like Dave's suggestion. I wouldn't want to type
    DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY a few dozen times for example... sure
    you can do that internally but exposing it to drivers... why ?

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:31    [W:4.314 / U:0.004 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site