Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api | From | Vinod Koul <> | Date | Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:49:37 +0530 |
| |
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 16:57 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On 7 October 2011 11:15, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote: > > > Thru this patch Jassi gave a very good try at merging DMA_SLAVE and > > memcpy, but more we debate this, I am still not convinced about merging > > memcpy and DMA_SLAVE yet. > > > Nobody is merging memcpy and DMA_SLAVE right away. > The api's primary purpose is to support interleave transfers. > Possibility to merge other prepares into this is a side-effect. For interleaved isn't that what you are trying? > > > I would still argue that if we split this on same lines as current > > mechanism, we have clean way to convey all details for both cases. > > > Do you mean to have separate interleaved transfer apis for Slave > and Mem->Mem ? Please clarify. If we can make API cleaner and well defined that way then Yes :)
-- ~Vinod
| |