Re: proposal for bus_dma(9) change

[Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>]

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.

- Most (all?) bus_dmamap_destroy() implementation leaves dmamap pointer
  and you can't use NULL check to see if the dmamap is vaild in that case.
  What do you think about it?

---
Izumi Tsutsui