From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IOlgi-0004Od-5U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:47:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IOlge-0004Kc-Ff
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:47:47 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IOlge-0004K4-4x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:47:44 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1IOjX3-0006To-6K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:29:41 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: PATCH, RFC: Generic DMA framework
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2007 01:29:32 +0100
References: <f43fc5580708141248l3ea425e9q5f3851f5096f1dee@mail.gmail.com>
	<200708242118.54118.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<46CF6AD2.7040905@bellard.org>
In-Reply-To: <46CF6AD2.7040905@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200708250129.34058.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> >> pci_gdma.diff: Convert PCI devices and targets
> >>
> >> Any comments? The patches are a bit intrusive and I can't test the
> >> targets except that they compile.
> >
> > Shouldn't the PCI DMA object be a property of the PCI bus?
> > ie. we don't want/need to pass it round as a separate parameter. It can
> > be inferred form the device/bus.
>
> I agree. Moreover the DMA is bus specific so I don't see a need to add a
> generic DMA layer.

I can see use for a generic DMA interface. It has some nice possibilities for 
devices which can connect via a variety of busses and maybe for layering 
different busses within a system.

However I don't know how well this will work in practice for the machines qemu 
currently emulates.

Paul