From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752306AbZHKPgq (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:36:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751844AbZHKPgq (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:36:46 -0400 Received: from waldorf.bytemark.co.uk ([212.110.162.22]:37548 "EHLO waldorf.bytemark.co.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751222AbZHKPgp (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:36:45 -0400 Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:36:33 +0200 From: "Emilio G. Cota" To: Martyn Welch Cc: Greg K-H , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Sebastien Dugue Subject: Re: [patch 1/5] Staging: VME Framework for the Linux Kernel Message-ID: <20090811153633.GC32658@braap.org> References: <20090803205657.964064732@mini.kroah.org> <20090803210111.GB28430@kroah.com> <20090808230145.GB27151@braap.org> <4A801644.2070009@gefanuc.com> <20090810141442.GA18456@braap.org> <4A804283.5090009@gefanuc.com> <20090810193849.GA3055@braap.org> <4A812BCE.3010003@gefanuc.com> <20090811144914.GB32658@braap.org> <4A8189D9.4080709@gefanuc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8189D9.4080709@gefanuc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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.