Re: [RFC] generic device DMA implementation

[James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>]

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_NON_CONSISTENT

The meaning of which are hopefully obvious this time

and dma_alloc_consistent to be equivalent to dma_alloc with  
DRIVER_SUPPORTS_CONSISTENT_ONLY (and hence equivalent to pci_alloc_consistent)

James