From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:32:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:32:48 -0400 Received: from aslan.scsiguy.com ([63.229.232.106]:56326 "EHLO aslan.scsiguy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 21:32:43 -0400 Message-Id: <200108230132.f7N1WkY22194@aslan.scsiguy.com> To: "David S. Miller" cc: groudier@free.fr, axboe@suse.de, skraw@ithnet.com, phillips@bonn-fries.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: With Daniel Phillips Patch In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:08:58 PDT." <20010822.180858.89278064.davem@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 19:32:46 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > From: "Justin T. Gibbs" > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:55:21 -0600 > > Then it is poorly named. How about "pci_dma32_t". Or better yet, > uint32_t. How do the guys writing SBUS drivers like the fact that > all of this mapping stuff is so PCI centric? > >Please actually take a look at a few SBUS drivers before >you open your big mouth. SBUS drivers use a totally different >API. Perhaps its different for SBUS, but its not different for ISA or EISA. The main point here is that if a single driver has multiple bus attachements they either "luck out" and can use a "pci api" to talk to their non-pci devices (the aic7xxx driver talks EISA/VL/PCI) or they have to have different mapping paths (SBUS/PCI driver). Do you believe that it is architecturally correct to have a single api or multiple apis? From your "big mouth" comment above, I assume the later. From the driver's standpoint, the task is pretty much the same, with perhaps different contraints on the types of address that can be supported by the device. The "pci" api already allows you to express this. -- Justin