Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:53:18 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: svn-src-projects@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, nwhitehorn@FreeBSD.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: busdma [was: Re: svn commit: r208850 - projects/ppc64/sys/powerpc/include] Message-ID: <BAA37646-BEB1-407D-9B1A-B1EF5AFF6CC8@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <C9595D21-993D-4B9B-990A-6AF86031F40A@samsco.org> References: <201006052041.o55KfMF6032155@svn.freebsd.org> <184A275D-B98A-4DBF-9F4D-22F27B9319DD@mac.com> <20100605.203348.651115405925906974.imp@bsdimp.com> <516EEDC6-069A-4780-84DF-BBFF43ABCDE5@samsco.org> <D700E0EE-EAEB-41C6-AC00-9E4D7276BBE9@mac.com> <C9595D21-993D-4B9B-990A-6AF86031F40A@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[about unifying busdma implementations] On Jun 6, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Scott Long wrote: >> Can you send me whatever you have or have done before so that I >> can leverage. >> > > I struggle with answering the question of whether to just reorg the interface definitions but leave the interface alone, or whether to rewrite the interface definitions in the context of having a new DMA api. *snip* I understand. All I can say is that when 90-95% of busdma is MI code and you only have a few MD functions, interface redesigns are a lot easier to manage and much less time-consuming to implement and test. I have an interest in busdma/mi, simply because it allows me add a feature to ia64 in a way that benefits all platforms and as such makes the work useful even if I have to abandon ia64 altogether. If busdma/mi ends your struggle and starts your work on busdma/ng, then I'm fine with that too. Then busdma/mi was still useful, just in a different way. Maybe busdma/ng cannot really happen without having busdma/mi first... -- Marcel Moolenaar xcllnt@mac.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BAA37646-BEB1-407D-9B1A-B1EF5AFF6CC8>