On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 09:58:31AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > +enum dma_data_attr {
> > + DMA_ATTR_BARRIER = (1 << 0),
> > + DMA_ATTR_FOO = (1 << 1),
> > + DMA_ATTR_GOO = (1 << 2),
> > + DMA_ATTR_MAX = (1 << 3),
> > +};
>
> FOO/GOO we dont need i guess ...
Right. That's example GOO ;-)
>
> > +#define DMA_FLAGS_ATTR_SHIFT 8
> > +#define DMA_FLAGS_DIR_MASK ((1 << DMA_FLAGS_ATTR_SHIFT) - 1)
> > +#define DMA_FLAGS_ATTR_MASK ~DMA_FLAGS_DIR_MASK
> > +
> > +static inline enum dma_data_direction dma_flags_get_dir(u32 fin)
> > +{
> > + return (fin & DMA_FLAGS_DIR_MASK);
> > +}
>
> the u32 looks a bit weird. Why not unsigned int ?
>
unsigned int would be fine with me.
> also, are the new dma_map_*() API compatible with the old one? I.e. does
> dma_map_*(...,0) and dma_map_*(...,1) map to the right thing? If yes
> then perhaps dont change 'int direction' to 'u32 flags' at all but just
> rename 'direction' to 'flags' and be done with it.
>
Yes, the callers don't necessarily need to be modified. Callers
of dma_map_* would only need to be changed if they want to pass
some additional attribute(s).
> also, this conversion:
>
> + enum dma_data_direction direction = dma_flags_get_dir(flags);
>
> would be unnecessary if callers passed in the bitmap already, instead of
> 'flags'. 0 and 1 would still map to the right thing i think.
>
Right, but if the caller *had* passed some optional attribute, we
probably want to strip it off (and either use it or ignore it, as
appropriate.)
--
Arthur
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
