On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 12:42:15PM +0200, Yorick Hardy wrote:
> >Yes. Maybe it should be better to add this as a parameter to
> >bus_dmamap_create(), and compute the proper _dm_bounce_thresh at this
> >time. But this is a big change in the bus_dma API, and require
> >changing a lot of files, unless we keep bus_dmamap_create() as is and
> >intruduce a new function with this extra parameter.
> >
> >  
> Is there an advantage to passing by parameter rather than by flag (as in 
> my patch) ?

This is a gross hack, a flag is meant as a boolean, not an arbitrary
value. And this doesn't handle bus_dmamem

> Obviously my patch limits the address to a power of 2, will this be a 
> problem?

And it can't sepcify a minimum address.

> 
> I think the patch I proposed may address the above paragraph without the 
> need to
> change many files.

I'd prefer to do it properly, even if we need to change many files.

-- 
Manuel Bouyer, LIP6, Universite Paris VI.           Manuel.Bouyer@lip6.fr
     NetBSD: 26 ans d'experience feront toujours la difference
--