On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 15:16 -0800, David Brown wrote:

On Fri, Feb 11 2011, Daniel Walker wrote:

quoted

On Fri, 2011-02-11 at 14:37 -0800, David Brown wrote:

quoted

quoted

It is functionality that will be shared across multiple socs.  Putting
the name of a specific soc would just be misleading.  Currently, it's
our only iommu.  Support for another family that uses a different iommu
could perhaps call it iommu2.

Your missing my point. I'm saying it doesn't look flexible enough to
allow support for multiple SoCs .. Is everything going to be identical
across all the supported socs ?

It wouldn't help, though.  If the addresses differ across targets, we
don't want defines that are conditionally defined, so we would need
multiple tables, giving the address for specific targets.  Still no
reason to have an indirection on the names.

I'm talking about the whole deal here, this whole patch series. It
doesn't seem like this has been thought out too well. 

Daniel

-- 
Sent by an consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
Forum.