[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <438BB0150E931F4B9CE701519A44630104A3914683@bgsmsx502.gar.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:43:28 +0530
From: "Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@...il.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 1/3] DMAENGINE: generic slave channel control v2
> 2010/7/22 Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>:
>
> > This adds an interface to the DMAengine to make it possible to
> > reconfigure a slave channel at runtime. We add a few foreseen
> > config parameters to the passed struct, with a void * pointer
> > for custom per-device or per-platform runtime slave data.
>
> BTW Vinod, if you're happy with this API, then please ACK it so
> Dan has some indication whether it'll fit the Moorestown too.
Shouldn't this patch remove the private member in dma_chan structure
Currently chan->private is used for sending slave or similar channel specific
information. Now if we want to add struct dma_slave_config, then IMHO it
would make sense to remove private variable and replace with dma_slave_config
struture. That way we can reuse this struture there as well and if someone wants
to add more stuff he can use the private_config.
Dan, what do you think about this?
Thanks
-Vinod
--
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