On Thursday, May 01, 2008 10:16 am Michael Buesch wrote: > > 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). Oh and for dma_set_mask specifically I don't see that many callers, so updating the tree appears doable (meye, aic7xxx, lasai700, qla2xxx, sni_53c710, ssb & ehci in my quick look). pci_set_dma_mask otoh is used in lots more places (and iirc some platforms implement pci_set_dma_mask in terms of dma_set_mask, so small updates would be needed there). 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
