lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/13] dmaengine: Introduce dma_request_slave_channel_compat_reason()
From
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:41:35 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 11/18/2015 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> >> 2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality matters, like
>> >> memcpy, interleaved, memset, etc.
>> >> We could have a simple:
>> >> dma_request_channel(mask);
>> >>
>> >> But looking at the drivers using dmaengine legacy dma_request_channel() API:
>> >> Some sets DMA_INTERRUPT or DMA_PRIVATE or DMA_SG along with DMA_SLAVE:
>> >> drivers/misc/carma/carma-fpga.c DMA_INTERRUPT|DMA_SLAVE|DMA_SG
>> >> drivers/misc/carma/carma-fpga-program.c DMA_MEMCPY|DMA_SLAVE|DMA_SG
>> >> drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/mx3_camera.c DMA_SLAVE|DMA_PRIVATE
>> >> sound/soc/intel/common/sst-firmware.c DMA_SLAVE|DMA_MEMCPY
>> >>
>> >> as examples.
>> >> Not sure how valid are these...
>
> I just had a look myself. carma has been removed fortunately in linux-next,
> so we don't have to worry about that any more.
>
> I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a
> plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY.

Other way around.

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-11-18 17:01    [W:0.108 / U:4.276 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site