![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 00:57, Jeremy Higdon wrote: > I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but it looks good. > > If you're going to get rid of pci_dev.consistent_dma_mask in favor > of pci_dev.dev.coherent_dma_mask, would you want to do the same > with pci_dev.dma_mask? It's probably about time that was done, yes. > Which brings to mind a second question; why is device.dma_mask > a u64 * instead of u64? Does it typically point to pci_dev.dma_mask? That's a bad design decision that will forever haunt me. When I first proposed moving from the PCI DMA model to the generic device DMA model, the dma_mask was in the wrong place. Quite a few drivers touched it themselves outside of the accessor functions, so actually moving it in to struct device became quite involved, so I took the easy way out and simply made the entry in struct device a pointer to the real one so that anything that updated the mask outside of the accessors would still work. I suppose I should really do the work as pennance, plus write out a hundred times "never sacrifice design integrity for expediency", sigh. James - 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 13:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||