[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080130095641.39eaad13@dhcp-252-066.norway.atmel.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:56:41 +0100
From: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shannon Nelson <shannon.nelson@...el.com>,
kernel@...32linux.org, "Francis Moreau" <francis.moro@...il.com>,
"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
"Vladimir A. Barinov" <vbarinov@...mvista.com>,
Pierre Ossman <drzeus-list@...eus.cx>
Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/5] dmaengine: Slave DMA interface and example users
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 22:56:14 -0800
David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> >
> > Btw, there's one issue I forgot to mention: I believe the DMA Engine
> > framework is currently misusing the DMA mapping API, and this patchset
> > makes things worse.
> >
> > Currently, the async_tx bits of the API do the required calls to
> > dma_map_single() and/or dma_map_page(), but they rely on the driver to
> > do the unmapping. This is problematic ...
> >
> > How do we solve this?
>
> How about: for peripheral DMA, don't let the engine see anything
> except dma_addr_t values.
I don't think it does, but the dma_addr_t value is enough to call
dma_unmap_single() and dma_unmap_page().
> The engine needs to be able to dma_alloc_coherent() memory too,
> which is pre-mapped.
Right, which is another argument for not doing any unmapping in the DMA
engine driver. We really need to push this responsibility to the client.
Haavard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists