Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api | From | Vinod Koul <> | Date | Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:57:04 +0530 |
| |
On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 05:36 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote: > > I think we all agree that this fits the dma_slave case :) > > > > As for changing in dmaengine to u64, if we are thinking this as > slave > > usage, then ideally we should not make assumption of the address > type > > of > > peripheral so we should only move the dma_slave_config address > fields > > to > > u64, if that helps in RIO case. Moving other usages would be insane. > > > > At this point we have two proposals > > a) to make RIO exceptional case and add RIO specific stuff. > > b) make dmaengine transparent and add additional argument > > in .device_prep_slave_sg() callback which is subsystem dependent. > > Current dmacs and those who don't need it will ignore it. > > > > ATM, I am leaning towards the latter, for the main reason to keep > > dmaengine away from subsystem details. > > > Both proposals will work for RapidIO but second option looks more > universal and may be used by another subsystem in the future. > My vote goes to the option b). Thanks for the vote :D
I would really like to hear from Dan, Jassi and Russell as well.
-- ~Vinod
| |