[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api
On 14 October 2011 23:20, Bounine, Alexandre <> wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 4:27 AM, Jassi Brar
> <>
>> wrote:
>> > On 7 October 2011 11:15, Vinod Koul <> 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.
>> >
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> This is a tangent, but it would be nice if this API extension also
>> covered the needs of the incoming RapidIO case which wants to specify
>> new device context information per operation (and not once at
>> configuration time, like slave case).  Would it be enough if the
>> transfer template included a (struct device *context) member at the
>> end?  Most dma users could ignore it, but RapidIO could use it to do
>> something like:
>>    struct rio_dev *rdev = container_of(context, typeof(*rdev),
> device);
>> That might not be enough, but I'm concerned that making the context a
>> (void *) is too flexible.  I'd rather have something like this than
>> acquiring a lock in rio_dma_prep_slave_sg() and holding it over
>> ->prep().  The alternative is to extend device_prep_slave_sg to take
>> an extra parameter, but that impacts all other slave implementations
>> with a dead parameter.
> Having context limited to the device structure will not be enough for
> RapidIO because of 66-bit target address (dma_addr_t will not work
> here).
> Probably that range is out of practical use at this moment but it is
> defined by RIO specification and I would prefer to deal with it now
> instead of postponing it for future. Passing context using (void *) will
> solve this.
OK so you need a void* to contain all info. Agreed.
But doesn't the info, pointed to by this (void *), remain same for every
transfer to a particular target/remote device ?
If so, couldn't you stick this (void *) to the virtual channel's
'private' ? 'private' :D
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: 2011-10-14 20:39    [W:0.115 / U:2.504 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site