lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api
From
Date
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



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-24 17:39    [W:0.560 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site