On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:02:39PM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> Greg KH <greg@kroah.com> writes:
> > > This this would end up [or have the ability to] invoking a bus-specific
> > > routine at some point, right? [so that a truly PCI-specific definition
> > > could be still be had]
> >
> > If that was needed, yes, we should not break that functionality.
> >
> > Are there any existing archs that need more than just dma_mask moved to
> > struct device out of pci_dev? Hm, ppc might need a bit more...
>
> I can't speak for `real machines,' but on my wierd embedded board,
> pci_alloc_consistent allocates from a special area of memory (not
> located at 0) that is the only shared memory between PCI devices and the
> CPU. pci_alloc_consistent happens to fit this situation quite well, but
> I don't think a bitmask is enough to express the situation.
What does your pci_alloc_consistent() function need from the pci_dev
structure in order to do what you need it to do? Anything other than
the dma_mask value?
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 15 2002 - 22:00:28 EST