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

Martyn Welch
2009-08-11T15:09:33Z

Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Martyn Welch wrote:
>
>> Again: what part of the API I have defined forces the driver to know
>> about the underlying bridge?
>>
>
> Let me answer with another question, maybe we get to understand
> each other this way:
>
> Could you please explain me what happens when 17 different drivers
> want to control 17 different devices, each on a different slot,
> same address modifier, only 1MB per device? Apply if necessary
> to the tsi148 bridge.
>

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.

> NB1. Any given driver knows nothing about the other devices
> on the crate; each driver only knows about the address, am and
> size of the mapping for the device it controls--user-space
> provide this info on a per-driver basis.
>
Yes. I agree.
> NB2. The mapping offsets configured through the cards' pins match
> the information passed from user space to each of the cards.
>
>
Yes. If I understand you correctly, your saying that management of the
devices in the VME address space is a system configuration issue.

> Cheers,
> E.
>
--
Martyn Welch MEng MPhil MIET (Principal Software Engineer) T:+44(0)1327322748
GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms Ltd, |Registered in England and Wales
Tove Valley Business Park, Towcester, |(3828642) at 100 Barbirolli Square,
Northants, NN12 6PF, UK T:+44(0)1327359444 |Manchester,M2 3AB VAT:GB 927559189