[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJe_ZhfYvd6mdUMtzdAKKk4o1ythCBm7rut7ZCWRTxiWLP__Tg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 20:00:16 +0530
From: Jaswinder Singh <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, vinod.koul@...el.com,
rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk, linus.walleij@...ricsson.com,
per.friden@...ricsson.com, wei.zhang@...escale.com,
ebony.zhu@...escale.com, iws@...o.caltech.edu,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, maciej.sosnowski@...el.com,
saeed@...vell.com, shawn.guo@...escale.com, yur@...raft.com,
agust@...x.de, iwamatsu.nobuhiro@...esas.com,
per.forlin@...ricsson.com, jonas.aberg@...ricsson.com,
anemo@....ocn.ne.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] DMAEngine: Let dmac drivers to set chan_id
On 26 July 2011 01:38, Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>>> I can sort of see why it is attractive for the goal of having clients
>>> being able to talk to multiple DMACs since it is a field that all
>>> channels already implement. But, I don't think we should be mixing
>>> sysfs presentation details with a capability that indicates a certain
>>> compatibility level in a DMAC driver implementation. If the goal is
>>> to be able to use a single client with multiple drivers that, to me,
>>> is asking for a new capability bit (dma_transaction_type) rather than
>>> an id. Do you have an example of the client and the DMACs that would
>>> first take advantage of such a cross DMAC compatibility?
>>>
>> Apparently I fail to explain my well. let me ask you this....
>>
>> Some DMAC drivers initialize chan_id before calling dma_async_device_register().
>> And dma_async_device_register() overwrites the chan_id _always_.
>>
>> Clearly only _one_ of them should be setting chan_id. Which was meant to be?
>
> Correct, it is meant that chan_id is only a sysfs property. Any
> driver usage that is assuming chan_id is anything more than a
> guaranteed unique number within a given dma_device's list of channels
> is probably inferring too much.
So you mean dmac/client drivers are wrong if they make use of chan_id.
They shouldn't count upon it's value - which is set by DMA API for a completely
independent purpose, i.e, creating contiguous sysfs entries.
Since "chan_id is only a sysfs property" and the fact that it is used
only _once_
by the DMA API
In drivers/dma/dmaengine.c
chan->chan_id = chancnt++;
dev_set_name(&chan->dev->device, "dma%dchan%d",
device->dev_id, chan->chan_id);
Can't we do away with chan_id altogether ? by having
dev_set_name(&chan->dev->device, "dma%dchan%d",
device->dev_id, chancnt++);
I mean why make every instance of dma_chan bigger by 4bytes ?
So why shouldn't we remove chan_id completely from the DMA API ?
Thanks,
Jassi
--
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs | Follow Linaro
http://facebook.com/pages/Linaro/155974581091106 -
http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg - http://linaro.org/linaro-blog
--
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