Hi David, On Tuesday 05 April 2011 13:54:09 David Cohen wrote: > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: [snip] > > We only have iommu2.ko at the moment. I've heard about an iommu1.ko being > > worked on, but I don't have more information. We don't know whether the > > OMAP5 will be able to use the same IOMMU implementation. Without more > > information, I'm quite reluctant to design and implement a generic > > solution that will end up being useless because we missed information in > > the design stage. > > One implementation belongs to mach-omap1 and other to mach-omap2. Not sure > if it's a good plan to get them together. My point is that we have a single implementation at the moment. Not one in mach-omap1 and one in mach-omap2, just one. I don't like solving problems with generic solutions when there's a single use case. > IMO the third option from Laurent solves the issue for now and don't make it > more difficult to implement a better standard to OMAP. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
