[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: proposal for bus_dma(9) change
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 12:01:59 Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> Christoph_Egger%gmx.de@localhost wrote:
> > If I am correct and if we are not going to change the bus_dma(9)
> > API, then we will always have to fix this only one problem
> > in the drivers again and again.
> - Is there any benefit to change all bus_dma(9) implementation
> instead of all drivers? I'm afraid the former is more complicated
> because there are many hidden indirect calls via function pointers
> in bus_dma structures/macro among machine/bus dependent implementation.
It shouldn't be hard to change bus_dmamap_create() implementation
to return a NULL dmamap pointer in error case.
> - Most (all?) bus_dmamap_destroy() implementation leaves dmamap pointer
> and you can't use NULL check to see if the dmamap is valid in that case.
> What do you think about it?
bus_dmamap_destroy() is not the problem. It is bus_dmamap_create() doing
this and the drivers *do* a NULL check if the dmamap is valid.
Main Index |
Thread Index |