On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: ... > As I said, AFAIK the trend is to get rid of ordering by initcalls and make > sure that drivers can handle missing dependencies properly, even for > "services" such as DMA, GPIO, clocks and so on, which after all are provided > by normal drivers like other. Ok - I'm not following the general kernel dev trends. initcall() levels are easy to understand and implement. So I would not be in a hurry to replace them. >> ps. I've written IOMMU support for four different IOMMUs on three >> operating systems (See drivers/parisc for two linux examples). But I >> still feel like I at best have 80% understanding of how this one is >> organized/works. Abstract descriptions and convoluted code have been >> handicapping me (and lack of time to dig further). > > > Well, this is one of my concerns with this driver. It isn't easy to read > (and so review, maintain, extend and debug found issues). My postscript comment was more to explain why I'm not confident in my opinion - not a reason to reject the patch series. I still consider the whole series as a step forward. But I'm not the expert here. Right now, with ~30 patches posted by the exynos iommu (official?) maintainer, no one else who has a clue will attempt to fix or clean up those kinds of problems. i.e. it's useful to enable others to fix what are essentially unspecified "design pattern" issues. cheers, grant -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |