Hi Tony, On Thursday 25 October 2012 09:56:44 Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [121025 01:39]: > > I still think you should split this in two files, omap-iommu.h and omap- > > iovmm.h. The later would just be arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/iovmm.h > > moved to include/linux.h. > > Can you please explain a bit more why you're thinking a separate > omap-iovmm.h is needed in addtion to omap-iommu.h? The IOVMM API is layered top of the IOMMU API. It's really a separate API, so two header files make sense. This patch creates a hybrid omap-iommu.h header with mixed definitions, it just doesn't feel right :-) I won't insist for a split though, if you think it's better to have a single header we can keep it that way. > My reasoning for not adding it is that neither intel nor amd needs > more than intel-iommu.h and amd-iommu.h. And hopefully the iommu > framework will eventually provide the API needed. And I'd rather > not be the person introducing this second new file into > include/linux :) > > Joerg and Ohad, do you have any opinions on this? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
