Hello, Arend.
On 01/09/14 16:08, Arend van Spriel wrote:
Maybe it would be better to use the DMA-API instead of the PCI wrappers.
I just found out that the PCI wrappers were indeed removed from the
DMA-API.txt documentation back in 2010, saying that "driver writers are
always able to use the DMA API with any bus":
https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/3/8/470
On the other hand, I was under the impression that the PCI API is for
(future?) platforms which may need a distinction between PCI and
non-PCI. That is why the Xillybus driver does some acrobatics, so that
the PCI API is used for PCI devices, and the general DMA API for non-PCI
devices.
Given that the distinction is already there, is it wise to remove it,
and use the plain DMA API for all? That will simplify the code, of
course, but if there's any esoteric platform that needs a different
treatment for PCI devices, it's better to stay as is, I suppose.
Thanks,
Eli
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
