On Thursday 01 May 2008 19:27:35 Jesse Barnes wrote:
quoted text
> On Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:16 am Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > 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).
> 
> Oh and for dma_set_mask specifically I don't see that many callers, so 
> updating the tree appears doable (meye, aic7xxx, lasai700, qla2xxx, 
> sni_53c710, ssb & ehci in my quick look). pci_set_dma_mask otoh is used in 
> lots more places (and iirc some platforms implement pci_set_dma_mask in terms 
> of dma_set_mask, so small updates would be needed there).

I was thinking about also adding a "request" call to the PCI DMA API,
as we have the same retry-issue there.

-- 
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/