Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC] generic device DMA implementation | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Date | 06 Dec 2002 23:32:41 +0100 |
| |
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/
| |