[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e9c3a7c20812020916ud0b426cvd0764f23a97973ad@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 10:16:05 -0700
From: "Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: "Guennadi Liakhovetski" <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
maciej.sosnowski@...el.com, hskinnemoen@...el.com,
nicolas.ferre@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/13] dmaengine: introduce dma_request_channel and private channels
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 8:52 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
<g.liakhovetski@....de> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I think, there is a problem with your dma_request_channel() /
> private_candidate() implementation: your current version only tries one
> channel from a dma device list, which matched capabilities. If this
> channel is not accepted by the client, you do not try other channels from
> this device and just go to the next one...
>
Which dma driver are you using? The dmaengine code assumes that all
channels on a device are equal. It sounds like there are differences
between peer-channels on the device in this case. If the driver
registers a device per channel that should give the flexibility you
want.
> Another problem I encountered with my framebuffer is the initialisation
> order. You initialise dmaengine per subsys_initcall(), whereas the only
> way to guarantee the order:
>
> dmaengine
> dma-device driver
> framebuffer
>
hmm... can the framebuffer be moved to late_initcall?
Regards,
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