Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:40:00 +0100 | From | Lars-Peter Clausen <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 08/10] ASoC: ux500_pcm: Differentiate between pdata and DT initialisation |
| |
On 11/19/2013 08:33 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Mark Brown wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 11:07:47AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: >> >>> require slightly different flags to inform the core that we 'are' >>> booting with DT. >> >> Is there some situation when we would want to say we're booting from DT >> when we aren't? Just wondering about the quotes. > > The quotes do 'not' mean anything special. :) > >>> +static const struct snd_dmaengine_pcm_config ux500_dmaengine_of_pcm_config = { >>> + .pcm_hardware = &ux500_pcm_hw, >>> + .prealloc_buffer_size = 128 * 1024, >> >> You shouldn't need to set this explicitly, the generic code should be >> able to pick a number for you - if you do need this number please >> explain why the number was chosen in the comments (or fix the core to >> guess better). At the minute the core just makes up a number too but at >> least then it's a consistent random number between platforms. >> >> Can you also get away without the pcm_hardware - the core should also >> have support for discovering this by querying the DMA controller? > > Despite the '+'s, I'm not actually adding these parameters, I'm > duplicating the pdata version and removing the stuff I 'know' that's > not required. I don't know what happens when/if these two parameters > are removed. I can add this to my TODO when I rip out platform data > support, which will happen when this stuff lands. >
I think the patch is fine for now. Once non-DT support has been removed for ux500 we should be able to remove the whole ux500_pcm.c file (Assuming that the ux500 DMA engine driver gains dma_slave_caps support).
- Lars
| |