linux-kernel - RE: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1319470024.20054.10.camel@vkoul-udesk3>
Date:	Mon, 24 Oct 2011 20:57:04 +0530
From:	Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To:	"Bounine, Alexandre" <Alexandre.Bounine@....com>,
	Russell King <rmk@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Jassi Brar <jaswinder.singh@...aro.org>,
	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 Mon, 2011-10-24 at 05:36 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
> > I think we all agree that this fits the dma_slave case :)
> > 
> > As for changing in dmaengine to u64, if we are thinking this as
> slave
> > usage, then ideally we should not make assumption of the address
> type
> > of
> > peripheral so we should only move the dma_slave_config address
> fields
> > to
> > u64, if that helps in RIO case. Moving other usages would be insane.
> > 
> > At this point we have two proposals
> > a) to make RIO exceptional case and add RIO specific stuff.
> > b) make dmaengine transparent and add additional argument
> > in .device_prep_slave_sg() callback which is subsystem dependent.
> > Current dmacs and those who don't need it will ignore it.
> > 
> > ATM, I am leaning towards the latter, for the main reason to keep
> > dmaengine away from subsystem details.
> > 
> Both proposals will work for RapidIO but second option looks more
> universal and may be used by another subsystem in the future.
> My vote goes to the option b). 
Thanks for the vote :D

I would really like to hear from Dan, Jassi and Russell as well.


-- 
~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/