> Please see https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/431333/ for related work. > I'm familiar with that patch series - I've been helping Yijing get it up to speed on PowerPC.
> I think it would be better not to introduce another architecture-specific > pci host bridge operations structure, but instead consolidate into > the one that is already there. We are also adding a generic way to set up > PCI DMA, so it would seems reasonable to hook into that place. I see what you're getting at, and I agree that we want to move towards generic operations. However, I think this should go in as is at this point, for two main reasons: 1) This is a good midpoint that makes it easier to move to a generic structure. Our arch specific stuff is quirky and difficult. This patch series does a lot to reduce the complexity, and would make it very easy to move these ops into a generic structure at some future point. 2) Trying to go generic at this point risks making the change set so complex and wide ranging that it will really struggle to get in. For example, Yijing's patch set, despite not changing any of the quirky stuff in PowerPC, is already quite long, and will require agreement from a lot of people before it can go in. Much as I would like to have everything as generic as possible, if we were to try to do the whole job in one go, it'd become a big, difficult, messy patch set, and would be less likely to happen than if we were to do it in two steps. Regards, Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
