[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120531104538.GA2666@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 11:45:38 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Tomoya MORINAGA <tomoya.rohm@...il.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...ux.intel.com>,
alsa-devel@...a-project.org, lars@...afoo.de,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Liam Girdwood <lrg@...com>
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH v5] sound/soc/lapis: add platform driver for
ML7213
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 02:38:30PM +0900, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 9:14 PM, Mark Brown
> > Please re-read what I wrote.
> Let me clarify.
> Do you say native DMA driver API like dmaengine_prep_slave_sg(),
> dmaengine_submit() shouldn't be used from ASoC driver, right ?
Your driver should be written in terms of the ASoC DMA framework.
> > No, all current mainline drivers using the library use cyclic DMA.
> I can't see any driver uses cyclic DMA. (I saw linux-next's tree from
> kernel.org.)
> Where is your saying "current mainline" ?
Linus' tree, or mine. Have you even looked at the soc-dmaengine-pcm
code? It uncondtionally requests a cyclic channel.
> However I think it seems difficult for supporting all devices.
> Because hardware dependency control code can't be added.
> For example, for ML7213, needs interrupt control both before/after DMA transfer.
> However, in case of using soc-dmaengine, the control can't be done.
> Because the processing is in soc-dmaengine.
Please be more specific. What are the concrete problems that you see?
Why is it not possible to address them within the framework?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists