Re: [PATCH 1/3] resource: shared I/O region support

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 03/29/2010 11:06 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
>>
>> I have to question this approach a bit.
>>
>> I would much rather see this as a two-step process, where multiple
>> devices request the same region with a "sharable" flag, and then have a
>> mutex associated with the struct resource (perhaps we need an outer
>> container called "struct muxed_resource" or some such.)
>>
>> What I *really* object to with this patch is that it inherently assumes
>> that there is only one multiplexed resource in the entire system... but
>> of course nowhere enforces that.
> 
> Well that does keep it simple, and with just one user that's probably
> best.
> 
> But why not use the common bus driver method?  Muxing at the resource
> level only seems to solve part of the problem...  It doesn't guarantee
> for example that driver A does something to a shared region that breaks
> driver B; it just makes sure they don't access the same region at the
> same time.
> 

The common bus driver method is the obvious thing to do, but it would
presumably be greatly helped by librarization.

	-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/