Oh, I agree. If we conduct a phased approach to this, what happens initially
is that the pci drivers simply pull pci_dev out of the struct device and use
it as previously.
However, I think the ultimate destination is to see how much of the bus
specific stuff we can abstract by throwing an API around it. I think IRQ,
port and mmio are feasible. Specific knowledge of bus posting et al may not
be.
> uhmm...If we are going to touch dma_mask in pci_dev, then just move it
> to struct device and be done with it. Then fixup pci_set_dma_mask() to
> do the right thing.
Well...OK. The advantage of a pointer in struct device is that the code can
be converted as is, and no-one has to muck with the direct accessors of the
pci_dev->dma_mask. However, I'll see how many of them there actually are, its
probably just the drivers that transfer the information to
blk_queue_bounce_limit.
> Duck! (that's going to get fixed it seems) ;^)
I thought the 53c700 was working OK? Richard Hirst did some extensive testing
on a parisc with an IO-MMU for me (he caught a lot of early mapping leaks
which I fixed).
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/