On 2023/12/15 10:11, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 08:27:55AM -0800, Mina Almasry wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 4:05 AM Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > [...] >>> I perfer the second one personally, as devmem means that it is not >>> readable from cpu. >> >> From my POV it has to be the first one. We want to abstract the memory >> type from the drivers as much as possible, not introduce N new memory >> types and ask the driver to implement new code for each of them >> separately. That was my initial thinking too: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netdev/msg949376.html But after discussion, it may make more sense to have two sets of API from the driver's piont of view if we want a complete safe type protection, so that compiler can check everything statically and devmem driver API have a clear semantic: 1. devmem is not allowed to be called into mm subsystem. 2. it will not provide a API like page_address(). >> > > Agree with Mina's point. Let's aim to decouple memory types from > drivers. > . >
