On Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:16 am Michael Buesch wrote: > Ok, will redo the patches with that added and the name changed. > > > Most drivers just do the fallback themselves, right? > > Right. > > > So it makes sense to > > just update the current code to fallback, and update drivers wanting > > specific mask values to check afterwards. I hate to inflict that kind of > > driver wide update on Michael though... :) > > Well, that's a lot of work and I'm not sure it's worth it. > I could live with having dma_set_mask as an API that fails on bad masks > and dma_request_mask as an API above that which retries. I think that's > just fine. Drivers can be migrated over time to the new API (or not. That > can be the driver maintainer's choice). Can you also update the docs with the new call, indicating that it should probably used in all but special cases? Thanks, Jesse -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
