On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:51:03 -0800 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First steps are after all followed by second steps, and often > by third steps. It's not "overengineering" to recognize when > those steps necessarily have a direction.
But it might be considered overengineering to actually take those steps when you're not sure if the direction is the right one :) Maybe we should ask Al Viro if we can use his in-kernel XML parser and take care of the extensibility requirements once and for all? ;-) > In this case, that direction is "working on more hardware", so > evaluating the interface proposal against several types of > hardware is a good way to review it. The hardware I referenced > doesn't seem "fringe" to me; it's used on more Linux systems > and by more users than the Synopsys design. And I've seen some > of the same issues on other DMA controllers: priority, options > for synchronization (e.g. after DMAREQ is signaled), and more. Right, but can we get away with some sort of vague "I think we need to go in _that_ direction eventually" spec for now, and just see how many existing drivers and hardware we can support with just some basic interfaces, and get a better idea about what we need to support the remaining ones? > In that vein, doesn't SuperH have DMA controllers to fit into this > proposed interface? I don't know about such "fringe" hardware > myself, but it'd be good to know if this proposal is sufficient > for the needs of drivers there. That would indeed be good to know, and is in fact the reason why I Cc'd Paul and Francis in the first place. Haavard -- 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/
