[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200801301245.32286.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:45:31 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...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 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface
On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 3:52 AM, David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > > Descriptor-based vs. register-based transfers sounds like something the
> > > DMA engine driver is free to decide on its own.
> >
> > Not entirely. The current interface has "dma_async_tx_descriptor"
> > wired pretty thoroughly into the call structure -- hard to avoid.
> > (And where's the "dma_async_rx_descriptor", since that's only TX??
> > Asymmetry like that is usually not a healthy sign.) The engine is
> > not free to avoid those descriptors ...
> >
>
> For better or worse I picked async_tx to represent "asynchronous
> transfers/transforms", not "transmit".
"dma_async_descriptor" would not be misleading. :)
--
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