linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5] sound/soc/lapis: add platform driver for ML7213

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

Message-ID: <CANKRQnj_LdGQPYPV7d5NNZBx8oM5aAGHu4qZidiiS6C4eNtNJQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 25 May 2012 18:30:06 +0900
From:	Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@...il.com>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>, Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
	Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, lars@...afoo.de,
	alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] sound/soc/lapis: add platform driver for ML7213

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Mark Brown
<broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com> wrote:
>> > Nobody seems to be working on it as far as I can tell, I've certainly
>> > not seen any patches.
>
>> If so, could you accept current platform/machine driver ?
>
> Ideally what would be happening here is that you or other people who
> have such systems would be working to add the required support to the
> core code, there's clearly a need for common code here as there are a
> number of different systems that don't have cyclic DMA and it wouldn't
> be great to end up with duplicated code.
>
> Is there some great difficulty in factoring out the support for
> non-cyclic audio DMA on dmaengine - it seems like if there is we must
> have a serious problem in dmaengine which we should fix?  If there is a
> substantial difficulty then that's different but it doesn't feel like
> we've tried doing common code yet, if there's problems doing that I'd
> like to understand what they are before we jump ahead of ourselves.

I'm not so familiar with Linux's DMA idea.
So we don't know whether non-cyclic dmaengine has problem or not.

Until now, we've developed device drivers use DMA driver like UART, SPI.
These drivers are  implemented using the same way, you called
"non-cyclic", and already applied.

As you said, common code for DMA code can be best solution.
However, currently, the code is nothing.
So, I want you to accept our driver as first step.
Because I think supporting new device is more important for linux than
dmaengine common.

thanks
-- 
ROHM Co., Ltd.
tomoya
--
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/