[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1315227964.26251.68.camel@vkoul-udesk3>
Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2011 18:36:04 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...ux.intel.com>
To: Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dma: shdma: transfer based runtime PM
On Mon, 2011-09-05 at 10:10 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Hi Vinod
>
> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
Please dont top post...
> > Sorry, I see it differently. I don't use any counters in my patch. I'm
> > only checking for empty queue, i.e., I'm just identifying the first
> > descriptor submission and the last completion or termination.
> >
> > > You juts need
> > > to call _put/_get at right places, which IMO l;ooks lot simpler than
> > > current approach
> >
> > If we didn't have to check for exact symmetry, then yes, I agree, this
> > would be cleaner. I.e., if we indeed had well-defined entry- and
> > exit-points, which are guaranteed to be called exact same number of times.
> > Like, e.g., with file open() / close() etc. But since we don't have this
> > symmetry, and instead have to add flags and iterate lists, this doesn't
> > look natural and simple to me anymore, sorry.
>
> What about this one? Would you be prepared to take it as is, or you still
> think, that a pm_runtime_get*() on each descriptor submission would be
> better?
I think I will go with your current approach. Let me review again and
check it. If I get time it should be in my tree by tonight
--
~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