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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <53556EB2.80503@ti.com>
Date:	Mon, 21 Apr 2014 15:17:06 -0400
From:	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
To:	Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.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

On Monday 21 April 2014 02:19 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 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?
> 
Please remember the infrastructure we are adding is not really for machines
(sub arch's) but for architectures. I don't think its worth adding methods
The whole reason of dma_ops being exported is take care of cases like yours
so we are just fine with that. If we see more cases likes your, we can
think about that.

regards,
Santosh

--
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/