Re: [patch 1/5] Staging: VME Framework for the Linux Kernel

["Emilio G. Cota" <cota@braap.org>]

Martyn Welch wrote:
> Not the same question, but I'd agree - that would probably break the  
> current model I have proposed. *However*, providing a resource  
> management layer as you have proposed above the basic resource  
> management my API provides would resolve that without added complexity  
> in the bridge drivers themselves.

It wouldn't break it, the model simply couldn't give you more
than 8 windows-->8 devices.

I think it should be the bridge the one that manages its
own resources, not someone else.
I'm coding a layer that works this way, we'll see how it looks.

> Yes. If I understand you correctly, your saying that management of the  
> devices in the VME address space is a system configuration issue.

It obviously is. We cannot impose the users where they should
plug their devices or which pins on the boards they should
tweak. They build their crates --> they tell the kernel about
them.