On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 07:03:08PM +1300, Alexey Korolev wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 06:50:43PM +1300, Alexey Korolev wrote: > >> In the 6th patch we clear old code. > > Given the churn in this area, I don't want to commit patches that do > > wholesale code replacement. I'd prefer to see each patch > > independently add some functionality and perform its related cleanup.
> I understand your point, will rework. > Would it be reasonable if I send one patch series for redesign of existing > implementation > and another one for 64bit support? Sending two patch series would be preferable. One series that converts the existing functionality to your new data structures, and one series that adds new capabilities. > > Also, since Gerd has some patches pending in this area, we should > > figure out which direction makes sense. Can you explain on how this > > 64bit support is different from the support proposed by Gerd? > > Ah it's a difficult thing, I don't want to criticise. You'll hate me :). > > I think Gerd's implementation is about saving existing approach and having > 64bit BARs support > with incremental sort of changes. It is reasonable, but causes the code to be > bulky, and adding extra types > (PCI_REGION_TYPE_PREFMEM64) is a bit misleading. I agree that PCI_REGION_TYPE_PREFMEM64 doesn't make sense to me. > 3. About RAM use (may not be important), but lets count: FYI - ram use doesn't really matter. In any reasonable config there will be multiple megabytes of ram available. The ram allocated with malloc_tmp is not reserved beyond the BIOS init phase. -Kevin
