On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:16 -0800, David Brown wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11 2011, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:37 -0800, David Brown wrote: > > >> It is functionality that will be shared across multiple socs. Putting > >> the name of a specific soc would just be misleading. Currently, it's > >> our only iommu. Support for another family that uses a different iommu > >> could perhaps call it iommu2. > > > > Your missing my point. I'm saying it doesn't look flexible enough to > > allow support for multiple SoCs .. Is everything going to be identical > > across all the supported socs ? > > It wouldn't help, though. If the addresses differ across targets, we > don't want defines that are conditionally defined, so we would need > multiple tables, giving the address for specific targets. Still no > reason to have an indirection on the names. I'm talking about the whole deal here, this whole patch series. It doesn't seem like this has been thought out too well. Daniel -- Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
