[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA9_cmdr7gjrbBN8tV9LAH2JXzFiegLzLPOAHVg-9sP8p9HRqg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:12:51 -0700
From: Dan Williams <djbw@...com>
To: Jubin Mehta <jubin.mehta@...el.com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmatest: masking tests for channel capabilities
[ apologies for the resend, gmail defaulted to html ]
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Dan Williams <djbw@...com> wrote:
>> +Example to perform only MEMCPY and PQ mode tests (0x01 | 0x04 = 0x05):
>> +
>> + % modprobe dmatest
>> + % echo dma0chan0 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/channel
>> + % echo 5 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/cap_mask
>> + % echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/iterations
>> + % echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/run
>
>
> Hmmm, I should have paid more attention when the debugfs support was
> initially proposed for dmatest. As it is I see duplication and
> configuration parameters getting out of sync with their module parameter
> equivalents versus just having all configuration go through module
> parameters. module_param_call() can be used for the more complex options.
> Debugfs at this point looks like overkill for what amounts to some simple
> configuration variables and a result line.
>
> --
> Dan
>
--
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