[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK=WgbY+aBwTno4YxGLaxS7Y-R=CS1604+c5j-6EMQSfJeGvTA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 22:44:22 +0200
From: Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@...ery.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
David Brown <davidb@...eaurora.org>,
Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Stuart Yoder <b08248@...il.com>,
Scott Wood <scottwood@...escale.com>,
Hiroshi Doyu <hdoyu@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] iommu/amd: Implement DOMAIN_ATTR_GEOMETRY attribute
On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com> wrote:
> Note that only the read-side is handled by the core. An IOMMU driver may
> decide to implement a write-side for the geometry which would be not in
> the core then. Having a dedicated function for the write-side does not
> make sense because (for now) there is only one upcoming driver requiring
> this.
I'd still go with a type-safe interface here, but maybe it's only me.
> I think dedicated functions also make the API harder to use because a
> developer first needs to find out if a property is read/written by a
> dedicated function or the set/get-attr interface.
I'm not so sure how would drivers use these "hardware-specific api
attr extensions" in general.
Is the intention that only hardware-specific drivers will use them ? I
guess that generic drivers won't be able to use them, because their
behavior will not be well-defined across all hardware implementations.
Thanks,
Ohad.
--
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