From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261289AbULSNid (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:38:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261290AbULSNid (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:38:33 -0500 Received: from [213.146.154.40] ([213.146.154.40]:31212 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261289AbULSNiB (ORCPT ); Sun, 19 Dec 2004 08:38:01 -0500 Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 13:37:58 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Mike Werner Cc: davej@codemonkey.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.10-rc3 1/4] agpgart: allow multiple backends to be initialized Message-ID: <20041219133758.GB599@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Mike Werner , davej@codemonkey.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.sourceforge.net References: <200412171255.59390.werner@sgi.com> <20041218144813.GA7635@infradead.org> <200412180917.14255.werner@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412180917.14255.werner@sgi.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:17:14AM -0800, Mike Werner wrote: > > The agp_bridge_find function pointer is bogus, that way you can only support > > one backend at a time. > Obviously you mean one type of backend here. > I have tried to simplify this patch as much as possible so that it only tries to do one thing > and that is just the api change. I think the searching for valid bridges is a separate issue > since none of the currently supported hardware needs it. The only possible platform > that I assumed might is amd64 and Andi Kleen specifically told me it doesn't. I agree that it's a separate issue. So keep the function poniter out for the time beeing and we can discuss it last. > I don't agree that you *must* pass the agp_bridge_data pointer for every method. > You don't need it for bind/unbind/free if you associate each memory region > allocated using agp_allocate_memory(bridge,...) with a particular bridge > which is what the patch does. That is, agp_memory knows which bridge it belongs to. Yes, agreed. But you need to pass the agp_bridge_data to each function in some way.