On Thursday 01 May 2008 19:22:55 Jesse Barnes wrote:
quoted text
> On Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:16 am Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Ok, will redo the patches with that added and the name changed.
> >
> > > Most drivers just do the fallback themselves, right?
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > So it makes sense to
> > > just update the current code to fallback, and update drivers wanting
> > > specific mask values to check afterwards.  I hate to inflict that kind of
> > > driver wide update on Michael though... :)
> >
> > Well, that's a lot of work and I'm not sure it's worth it.
> > I could live with having dma_set_mask as an API that fails on bad masks
> > and dma_request_mask as an API above that which retries. I think that's
> > just fine. Drivers can be migrated over time to the new API (or not. That
> > can be the driver maintainer's choice).
> 
> Can you also update the docs with the new call, indicating that it should 
> probably used in all but special cases?

Yeah sure. Forgot that.

-- 
Greetings Michael.
--
unsubscribe notice
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/