On Thursday 25 October 2007, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So you'd suggest having search utilities (as with platform_bus)
> > returning resource indices not resources?
>
> That seems a bad idea to me
I'm assuming you mean they should continue to work like they
do today: return the resource. Your pseudocode below shows
an iomap utility taking a resource.
> > Thing is, BARs are usually well defined, but when folk glue
> > resources together they use whatever order is convenient on
> > that particular platform. And different platforms can have
> > different numbers and types of resources, etc.
>
> Far better I think that pci_ functions that take BAR values end up as
> wrappers of the form
>
> pci_iomap(pdev, bar)
> return dev_iomap_resource(&pdev->resource[bar]);
Sure, for PCI ... where the meaning of BARs is a fixed part of the
hardware spec, and it's not uncommon to skip a few.
But as I noted, that notion doesn't apply cleanly outside PCI;
indexes aren't necessarily portable between systems. So any
such interface should discourage their use.
One issue with a dev_iomap() is that only memory resources
really need mapping ... but *all* of them need claiming.
(Modulo the detail that the iomap morphs i/o addresses too.)
The $SUBJECT function is a (minor) simplification for both
the mapping and claiming steps.
I think I'd rather see a dev_resource_claim() which combines
the request_{,mem_}region() semantics with mapping ... that
way drivers could save code, not just unify the two types
of register addressing.
- Dave
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
