linux-kernel - RE: [RFC] dmaengine: Moving TI SDMA driver to dmaengine

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <E0D41E29EB0DAC4E9F3FF173962E9E94030259CDC4@dbde02.ent.ti.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:44:02 +0530
From:	"Raju, Sundaram" <sundaram@...com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-omap@...r.kernel.org" <linux-omap@...r.kernel.org>,
	Dan <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	"Shilimkar, Santosh" <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [RFC] dmaengine: Moving TI SDMA driver to dmaengine - design
	plan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@....linux.org.uk]
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:34 PM
> To: Raju, Sundaram
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org; linux-omap@...r.kernel.org; Dan;
> Shilimkar, Santosh; linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [RFC] dmaengine: Moving TI SDMA driver to dmaengine - design
> plan
> 
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:52:17PM +0530, Raju, Sundaram wrote:
> > I am planning to move TI SDMA driver in OMAP tree
> > into the dmaengine framework.
> >
> > The first immediate issue of concern I noticed is the
> > huge number of client drivers that use the existing SDMA driver.
> > More than 15 client drivers are using the current SDMA driver.
> >
> > Moving the SDMA driver along with all of these client drivers at a
> > single stretch seems a humungous task.
> > I noticed a model in the existing DMA drivers in dmaengine
> > framework that will over come this issue.
> 
> It _is_ sane to build a dmaengine driver on top of the existing SoC
> private API, then convert the drivers to DMA engine, and then cleanup
> the resulting DMA engine driver.

Yes, that is what I thought. Thanks.

> 
> What we must make sure though is that the DMA engine slave API (which
> isn't well documented) is correctly implemented before drivers are
> converted over to use the DMA engine support code, otherwise we may
> end up with lots of drivers that require re-fixing several times over.
>

Very true! Agreed!
I will send over the patches for review once I am done with testing.

Regards,
Sundaram
--
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/