Re: [RFC] generic device DMA implementation

[Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org>]

On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:42:21AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
>    Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002 12:40:49 -0600
> 
>    Yes, we've discussed that too...but not come to a conclusion.  The problem is 
>    really that if you call dma_alloc and pass in the DMA_CONFORMANCE_NON_CONSISTEN
>    T flag, what you're saying is "This driver implements all the correct cache 
>    flushes and can cope with inconsistent memory.  Please give me the type of 
>    memory that's most efficient for the platform I'm running on.".  The driver 
>    isn't asking give me a specific type of memory, it's telling the platform what 
>    it's capabilities are.
>    
>    Any thoughts on naming would be most welcome.
> 
> How about just making a dma_alloc_$(NEWNAME)(), and consistent ports
> can just alias that to dma_alloc_consistent()?
> 
> The only question is $(NEWNAME).  "inconsistent" might be ok, but it's
> maybe too similar to "consistent" for my taste.

Can we do pci_alloc_consistent -> dma_alloc? Then regardless of what
you name the other one, the consistent version will obviously be prefered.

-- 
 "Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."