![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 2006-11-08 at 10:25 +0200, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 12:54:37PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > - For platforms like powerpc where I can have multiple busses on > > different IOMMU's and with possibly different DMA ops, I really need to > > have a per-device data structure for use by the DMA ops (in fact, in my > > case, containing the DMA ops themselves). Right now, I defined a notion > > of "device extension" (struct device_ext) that my current implementation > > puts in device->firmware_data (don't look for it upstream, it's all > > patches queuing up for 2.6.20 and about to go into powerpc.git), but > > that I'd like to have flat in struct device instead. Would it be agreed > > that linux/device.h includes itself an asm/device.h which contains a > > definition for a struct device_ext that is within struct device ? That > > would also avoid a pointer indirection which is a good thing for DMA > > operations > > I want multiple dma_ops for Calgary on x86-64, so strong thumbs up for > doing this in a generic manner. device_ext kinda sucks as a name, > though... if it's used for just dma_ops, how about device_dma_ops? > > I agree with the rest of your suggestions too, FWIW. Yes, I need multiple dma_ops for powerpc too and additional void * data that go with them (iommu instance). I use it for more than dma ops though. I posted the actual structure content in another reply to Dave. I agree, though, device_ext sucks as a name, you are welcome to propose something better, I'm no good at finding names :-) Ben. - 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: 2006-11-08 08:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||