On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:41:28 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote: > > Its implemented using the per-device dma-ops already there. With > > this patches there is a list of available dma_ops implementations > > which are asked in a particular order if they can handle the > > device. The first implementation which returns true is assigned to > > the device as the per-device dma_ops structure. > > > > (Hmm, maybe the name stackable is misleading, is "dma_ops > > multiplexing" better?) > > Is per-device the right level? Wouldn't per-bus make more sense? not really; all DMA functions get a device as argument already anyway; just going to bus makes no sense there. Even if you set it the same for the whole bus almost all of the time... the APIs just work per device. (and device assignment clearly is per device as well) -- Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
