Martyn Welch wrote:Unless the devices we the same and the driver reused one window.
Not the same question, but I'd agree - that would probably break the current model I have proposed. *However*, providing a resource management layer as you have proposed above the basic resource management my API provides would resolve that without added complexity in the bridge drivers themselves.
It wouldn't break it, the model simply couldn't give you more
than 8 windows-->8 devices.
I think it should be the bridge the one that manages itsI still think that layering this above the driver is better - it only needs to be written once rather than replicated for each bridge chip.
own resources, not someone else.
I'm coding a layer that works this way, we'll see how it looks.Much obliged.
Agreed.Yes. If I understand you correctly, your saying that management of the devices in the VME address space is a system configuration issue.
It obviously is. We cannot impose the users where they should
plug their devices or which pins on the boards they should
tweak. They build their crates --> they tell the kernel about
them.