[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812111750130.6881@axis700.grange>
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2008 17:56:51 +0100 (CET)
From: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
cc: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fbdev-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, adaplas@...il.com,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.arm.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4 v2] dmaengine: add a tx_free method to struct
dma_async_tx_descriptor
On Thu, 11 Dec 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Guennadi Liakhovetski
> <g.liakhovetski@....de> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, actually, it's not VIDIOC_DQBUF where we have to free buffer(s),
> > it's VIDIOC_STREAMOFF. And in a normal case there are no more completion
> > interrupts, no allocation requests, and noone is interested in
> > is_tx_complete. Normally you would just get a dma_release_channel after
> > that. Or, of course, the application may decide to restart capture, then
> > we get requests, completions, etc. again. So, yes, I could do this, it
> > just seems a bit unnatural to me.
>
> Could the application tolerate another call to dma_request_channel
> when it restarts? I.e. just call dma_release_channel from the ioctl
> to clean everything up and not worry about another free() mechanism?
For V4L - yes, I could do this. But is it a good idea to hard-code into a
"generic" dma driver (or at least something that pretends to be a generic
driver), that descriptors can only ever be freed by releasing the
channel?...
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
--
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