[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1314698522.1606.164.camel@vkoul-udesk3>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 15:32:02 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...ux.intel.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Magnus Damm <damm@...nsource.se>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serial: sh-sci: don't filter on DMA device, use only
channel ID
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 09:54 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > >> You should not assign chan->private.
> > > >> Please move this to dma_slave_control API
> > > >
> > > > I haven't seen any reply to this comment and this patch seems to still be
> > > > outstanding, is there an updated version of this patch that I've missed?
> > I don't recall seeing any updated version fixing this
>
> As a matter of fact, when you say "use dma_slave_control API," you
> actually mean the dma_slave_config, right? Then, how is one supposed to
> use it in this case? Shall we be issuing a DMA_SLAVE_CONFIG call inside of
> the filter and check the return code? The problem is, that not all DMA
> controllers on sh-mobile SoCs can service the same slave devices. So, if
> we don't check in the filter we might well get an unsuitable DMA channel.
Here you are assigning to chan->private your specific values, which
should be moved to the dma_slave_config.
But here you are removing the checks, and accepting the first channel
you got, so how do you find channel is suitable or not.
--
~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