[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20802061308q56cf7d25paae75aed9bde4035@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:08:35 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Cc: "David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>,
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 Jan 30, 2008 5:26 AM, Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com> wrote:
[..]
> Right. I'll add a "unsigned int engine_type" field so that engine
> drivers can go ahead and extend the standard dma_device structure.
> Maybe we should add a "void *platform_data" field to the dma_slave
> struct as well so that platforms can pass arbitrary platform-specific
> information to the DMA controller driver?
>
I think we can get away with not adding an engine_type field:
1/ For a given platform there will usually only be one driver active.
For example I have an architecture (IOP) specific dma_copy_to_user
implementation that can safely assume it is talking to the iop-adma
driver since ioat_dma and others are precluded by the Kconfig.
2/ If there was a situation where two dma drivers were active in a
system you could tell them apart by comparing the function pointers,
i.e. dma_device1->device_prep_dma_memcpy !=
dma_device2->device_prep_dma_memcpy.
--
Dan
--
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