[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20100729181412H.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:14:49 +0900
From: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Joerg.Roedel@....com
Cc: fujita.tomonori@....ntt.co.jp, arnd@...db.de,
stepanm@...eaurora.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dwalker@...eaurora.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm: msm: Add System MMU support.
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:08 +0200
"Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@....com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 04:46:59AM -0400, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 10:40:19 +0200
> > "Roedel, Joerg" <Joerg.Roedel@....com> wrote:
> >
> > > The IOMMU-API is not about SR-IOV.
> >
> > That's true. However, the point is that include/iommu.h is far from
> > the IOMMU-API.
> >
> > You could still insist that include/iommu.h is designed for the
> > generic IOMMU-API. But the fact is that it's designed for very
> > specific purposes. No intention to make it for generic purposes.
>
> I have no clue about the ARM iommus on the omap-platform. From a quick
> look into the header file I see some similarities to the IOMMU-API. I am
ARM's iommu stuff might be more appropriate as the IOMMU-API than
include/linux/iommu.h
> also very open for discussions about how the IOMMU-API could be extended
> to fit the needs of other platforms. Only because nobody has tried to
> discuss about such an effort is no reason to push the IOMMU-API back.
Well, the reason (nobody has tried) might be that linux/iommu.h
doesn't look something intended for the generic IOMMU-API.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists