[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1317997177.1573.2275.camel@vkoul-udesk3>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:49:37 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>
Cc: "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.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 Fri, 2011-10-07 at 16:57 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 7 October 2011 11:15, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > Thru this patch Jassi gave a very good try at merging DMA_SLAVE and
> > memcpy, but more we debate this, I am still not convinced about merging
> > memcpy and DMA_SLAVE yet.
> >
> Nobody is merging memcpy and DMA_SLAVE right away.
> The api's primary purpose is to support interleave transfers.
> Possibility to merge other prepares into this is a side-effect.
For interleaved isn't that what you are trying?
>
> > I would still argue that if we split this on same lines as current
> > mechanism, we have clean way to convey all details for both cases.
> >
> Do you mean to have separate interleaved transfer apis for Slave
> and Mem->Mem ? Please clarify.
If we can make API cleaner and well defined that way then Yes :)
--
~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