From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
To: Jeremy Higdon <jeremy@sgi.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
willy@debian.org, Jes Sorensen <jes@wildopensource.com>,
Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>,
alex.williamson@hp.com, jbarnes@sgi.com, ak@muc.de,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] move consistent_dma_mask to the generic device
Date: 27 Feb 2004 08:55:30 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1077893732.1806.2.camel@mulgrave> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040227065702.GB561561@sgi.com>
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
prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-27 14:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-26 16:53 [PATCH] move consistent_dma_mask to the generic device James Bottomley
2004-02-27 6:57 ` Jeremy Higdon
2004-02-27 14:55 ` James Bottomley [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1077893732.1806.2.camel@mulgrave \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=ak@muc.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=alex.williamson@hp.com \
--cc=grundler@parisc-linux.org \
--cc=jbarnes@sgi.com \
--cc=jeremy@sgi.com \
--cc=jes@wildopensource.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@debian.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox