From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Alexey Zaytsev" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.3 - QMGR Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:47:31 +0400 Message-ID: References: <5BB7E1AB-5CE1-43C8-8CE3-E0DE0236BD09@cam.ac.uk> <86D26EBE-5899-468F-9C79-23E83E0DE04B@cam.ac.uk> <20070508113232.GA32055@xi.wantstofly.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Krzysztof Halasa" , "Michael-Luke Jones" , "Jeff Garzik" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, lkml , "Russell King" , "ARM Linux Mailing List" To: "Lennert Buytenhek" Return-path: Received: from ik-out-1112.google.com ([66.249.90.182]:9764 "EHLO ik-out-1112.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S966124AbXEHMrd (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 08:47:33 -0400 Received: by ik-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id b35so1528954ika for ; Tue, 08 May 2007 05:47:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20070508113232.GA32055@xi.wantstofly.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 5/8/07, Lennert Buytenhek wrote: ... > As with Christian's driver, I don't know whether an SRAM allocator > makes much sense. We can just set up a static allocation map for the > in-tree drivers and leave out the allocator altogether. I.e. I don't > think it's worth the complexity (and just because the butt-ugly Intel > code has an allocator isn't a very good reason. :-) Is the qmgr used when the NPEs are utilized as DMA engines? And is the allocator needed in this case? If yes, I beg you not to drop it, because we use one NPE for this purpose, and if we are going to adopt this driver instead of the intel's one, you will receive a patch adding DMA functionality very soon. ;)