From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753205AbZHKPkv (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:40:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752416AbZHKPku (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:40:50 -0400 Received: from exprod5og107.obsmtp.com ([64.18.0.184]:51694 "EHLO exprod5og107.obsmtp.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752389AbZHKPku (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Aug 2009 11:40:50 -0400 Message-ID: <4A819130.5080802@gefanuc.com> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:41:36 +0100 From: Martyn Welch User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Emilio G. Cota" 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 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> <20090811153633.GC32658@braap.org> In-Reply-To: <20090811153633.GC32658@braap.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Emilio G. Cota wrote: > 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. > Unless the devices we the same and the driver reused one window. > I think it should be the bridge the one that manages its > own resources, not someone else. > I still think that layering this above the driver is better - it only needs to be written once rather than replicated for each bridge chip. > I'm coding a layer that works this way, we'll see how it looks. > > Much obliged. >> 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. > Agreed. Martyn -- 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