[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101223001012.GF29368@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2010 00:10:12 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>,
Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>, yuanyabin1978@...a.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Peter Pearse <peter.pearse@....com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Alessandro Rubini <rubini@...pv.it>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] DMAENGINE: driver for the ARM PL080/PL081
PrimeCells
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 03:45:39PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> 3.6 Constraints:
> 1/ Calls to async_<operation> are not permitted in IRQ context. Other
> contexts are permitted provided constraint #2 is not violated.
BTW, this is misleading. Have the functions been renamed dma_async_xxx(),
eg dma_async_memcpy_buf_to_buf etc, or are you referring just to:
async_dmaengine_get
async_dmaengine_put
async_dma_find_channel
async_dma_find_channel
async_tx_ack
async_tx_clear_ack
async_tx_test_ack
Beware of just renaming it to dma_async_<operation> as there's other
functions in that namespace which may not be appropriate.
Eg, is it really illegal to issue call dma_async_issue_pending() from
IRQ context? That'd make it exceedingly difficult to use the DMA
engine with the slave API in a lot of device drivers.
--
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