linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] of: setup dma parameters using dma-ranges and dma-coherent

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: <20140421201911.10783191@skate>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:19:11 +0200
From:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Strashko, Grygorii" <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Gregory Clément 
	<gregory.clement@...e-electrons.com>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
	Lior Amsalem <alior@...vell.com>,
	Tawfik Bayouk <tawfik@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] of: setup dma parameters using dma-ranges and
 dma-coherent

Dear Santosh Shilimkar,

On Mon, 21 Apr 2014 09:35:25 -0400, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:

> > In mach-mvebu, what we do is that we register a bus notifier on the
> > platform bus, so that we can set our custom DMA operations for all
> > platform devices in the system. Should this be done in a different way
> > after your series?
> > 
> Nope. Since you have a very custom SOC specific case, you can continue
> what you are doing.

True, but as you said, the goal is to remove machine code. So instead
of having just a 'dma-coherent' property, shouldn't we have a
dma-method property, which could be dma-method = "coherent" or
dma-method = "marvell,io-coherent" and therefore allow the DT binding
to cover more use cases than just the default non-coherent and coherent
DMA operations?

Best regards,

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/