[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJe_ZhfDK0RzSA=wiDhiXhqakp_HGbH8s5HsNEVdnCyWoLosLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2011 12:42:28 +0530
From: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
To: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
DL-SHA-WorkGroupLinux <workgroup.linux@....com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api
On 5 October 2011 23:44, Williams, Dan J <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> This new operation type strikes me as being in a similar vein to
> commit a08abd8c "async_tx: structify submission arguments, add
> scribble", in that we convert multiple submission arguments into one
> description template. With some tweaks it could probably even cover
> the DMA_CYCLIC, but probably could not cover the raid ops. In general
> I'm concerned about operation type proliferation, so if we added this
> one I'd like to see others removed.
>
ATM this api is meant to provide a way for clients to express
interleaved (in bytes) transfers which are not possible using any
other api.
I do share your concern about operation type proliferation, and in fact
tried to make this api so that at least some prepares could be merged
in to it, but I am not sure how reasonable would it be hold this api
at ransom until other prepares are merged.
The way I see things, if we make this api generic enough we could
disallow adding more apis and merge extant ones into it one by one
at our own pace.
-j
--
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