[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCHv2] DMAEngine: Let dmac drivers to set chan_id
    On 26 July 2011 01:38, Williams, Dan J <> wrote:

    >>> I can sort of see why it is attractive for the goal of having clients
    >>> being able to talk to multiple DMACs since it is a field that all
    >>> channels already implement.  But, I don't think we should be mixing
    >>> sysfs presentation details with a capability that indicates a certain
    >>> compatibility level in a DMAC driver implementation.  If the goal is
    >>> to be able to use a single client with multiple drivers that, to me,
    >>> is asking for a new capability bit (dma_transaction_type) rather than
    >>> an id.  Do you have an example of the client and the DMACs that would
    >>> first take advantage of such a cross DMAC compatibility?
    >> Apparently I fail to explain my well. let me ask you this....
    >> Some DMAC drivers initialize chan_id before calling dma_async_device_register().
    >> And dma_async_device_register() overwrites the chan_id _always_.
    >> Clearly only _one_ of them should be setting chan_id. Which was meant to be?
    > Correct, it is meant that chan_id is only a sysfs property.  Any
    > driver usage that is assuming chan_id is anything more than a
    > guaranteed unique number within a given dma_device's list of channels
    > is probably inferring too much.

    So you mean dmac/client drivers are wrong if they make use of chan_id.
    They shouldn't count upon it's value - which is set by DMA API for a completely
    independent purpose, i.e, creating contiguous sysfs entries.

    Since "chan_id is only a sysfs property" and the fact that it is used
    only _once_
    by the DMA API

    In drivers/dma/dmaengine.c

    chan->chan_id = chancnt++;
    dev_set_name(&chan->dev->device, "dma%dchan%d",
    device->dev_id, chan->chan_id);

    Can't we do away with chan_id altogether ? by having

    dev_set_name(&chan->dev->device, "dma%dchan%d",
    device->dev_id, chancnt++);

    I mean why make every instance of dma_chan bigger by 4bytes ?

    So why shouldn't we remove chan_id completely from the DMA API ?


    -- │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro  -!/linaroorg -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2011-07-26 16:33    [W:0.024 / U:5.580 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site