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:3.507 / U:0.400 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site