Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/4] dmaengine: edma: Add support for DMA filter mapping to slave devices | From | Peter Ujfalusi <> | Date | Tue, 8 Dec 2015 15:15:31 +0200 |
| |
On 12/03/2015 05:46 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > On 12/03/2015 05:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Thursday 03 December 2015 16:33:12 Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/edma.c b/drivers/dma/edma.c >>> index 0675e268d577..46b305ea0d21 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/dma/edma.c >>> +++ b/drivers/dma/edma.c >>> @@ -2297,6 +2297,12 @@ static int edma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> edma_set_chmap(&ecc->slave_chans[i], ecc->dummy_slot); >>> } >>> >>> + if (info->slave_map) { >>> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.map = info->slave_map; >>> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.mapcnt = info->slavecnt; >>> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.filter_fn = edma_filter_fn; >>> + } >>> + >>> >> >> Just a minor comment here: I think all three assignments can be done >> unconditionally. > > True. > >> As I mentioned before, I'd also remove 'struct dma_filter' >> and put the three members in struct dma_device directly. In fact, the >> filter function can go with the other function pointers for consistency. > > I just like to keep things in one place ;) > I don't have strong stand on keeping the intermediate 'struct dma_filter' > Let's hear from Vinod regarding to this
One remaining design issue is on how and where to place the filter related variables/pointers:
Keep it separated as it was in the RFC and v01 series:
struct dma_slave_map { const char *devname; const char *slave; void *param; };
struct dma_filter { dma_filter_fn fn; int mapcnt; const struct dma_slave_map *map; };
struct dma_device { ... struct dma_filter filter; ... };
Or to have them under the dma_device directly:
struct dma_device { ... int filter_mapcnt; const struct dma_slave_map *filter_map; ... dma_filter_fn filter_fn; ... };
Vinod: what is your preference for this?
Thanks, Péter
| |