lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Proposal for new generic device API: dma_get_required_mask()
From
Date
On Thu, 2004-06-17 at 19:46, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> #define OUR_COST_32 = 4
> #define OUR_COST_39 = 8
> #define OUR_COST_64 = 10
>
> int cost32 = check_dma_mask(32 bits);
> int cost39 = check_dma_mask(39 bits);
> int cost64 = check_dma_mask(64 bits);
>
> if (!cost32 && !cost39 && !cost64)
> printk(KERN_ERR "64 bits aren't enough for RAM addressing?\n")
> else
> use_mode_with_minimal_cost(cost32 * OUR_COST_32,
> cost39 * OUR_COST_39,
> cost64 * OUR_COST_64);
>
> This check_dma_mask() should be renamed + extended to cover different
> RAM access types:
> - coherent vs non-coherent memory
> - preallocated/initialized memory (such as skb->data passed to
> hard_start_xmit()) vs uninitialized memory (such as returned by
> kmalloc()).

Well, I did consider a similar API, but not for long.

It falls victim to the 95/5 rule---when you engineer an API, if 95% of
the complexity is dealing with the 5% of special cases, you're over
engineering.

So the original proposal is the remaining 5% that covers 95% of the use
cases (and will do better even on the remaining 5%).

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 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans