[patch 1/5] Staging: VME Framework for the Linux Kernel
martyn.welch at gefanuc.com
Tue Aug 11 15:41:36 UTC 2009
Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> Martyn Welch wrote:
>> Not the same question, but I'd agree - that would probably break the
>> current model I have proposed. *However*, providing a resource
>> management layer as you have proposed above the basic resource
>> management my API provides would resolve that without added complexity
>> in the bridge drivers themselves.
> It wouldn't break it, the model simply couldn't give you more
> than 8 windows-->8 devices.
Unless the devices we the same and the driver reused one window.
> I think it should be the bridge the one that manages its
> own resources, not someone else.
I still think that layering this above the driver is better - it only
needs to be written once rather than replicated for each bridge chip.
> I'm coding a layer that works this way, we'll see how it looks.
>> Yes. If I understand you correctly, your saying that management of the
>> devices in the VME address space is a system configuration issue.
> It obviously is. We cannot impose the users where they should
> plug their devices or which pins on the boards they should
> tweak. They build their crates --> they tell the kernel about
Martyn Welch MEng MPhil MIET (Principal Software Engineer) T:+44(0)1327322748
GE Fanuc Intelligent Platforms Ltd, |Registered in England and Wales
Tove Valley Business Park, Towcester, |(3828642) at 100 Barbirolli Square,
Northants, NN12 6PF, UK T:+44(0)1327359444 |Manchester,M2 3AB VAT:GB 927559189
More information about the devel