On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 12:33:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:22:43AM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 12:04:49PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 02:27:39PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
[snip] > > > > > > I'm a bit confused with all the stubbing going on. > > > Is this the final form of the pci_* functions or just > > > a stub? If the final form, we probably should just > > > open-code them - they don't buy us much. > > > If not, let's add a comment? > > > > Well.. it's the intended final form of pci_dma_*() - which do become > > trivial wrappers, yes. > > I'd say let's drop them then (in a follow-up patch). The topic is > confusing enough without having to wade through layers of wrappers :) > Drop them how? Using dma_* stuff directly? That might work, but I remember others suggesting we should use a specialized PCI wrapper. Perhaps it makes sense if some other bus, or PCI itself at some point, needs to do something special. > > It's _not_ the intended final form of dma_*(), > > which need to grow code to do actual IOMMU translation. I'll add a > > comment about this in the next round. > > > > -- > > David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my > > code > > david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ > > _other_ > > | _way_ _around_! > > http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
