[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160531132706.GC29837@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 14:27:07 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Michal Suchanek <hramrach@...il.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-sunxi <linux-sunxi@...glegroups.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@...e.org>,
linux-spi <linux-spi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] RFC spi: sun4i: add DMA support
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 12:44:54PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 30 May 2016 at 17:50, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 05:28:10PM +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> >> It's what the driver did to start with and it was requested to fall
> >> back to non-DMA in the case DMA is not available.
> > Why? I really can't see any sensible use case for this that doesn't
> > have a better solution available.
> Of course, the solution is to compile in the DMA driver.
> It's been argued that some drivers which use only short transfers will
> just work.
With nothing else in the system that needs DMA? It's making the
performance of the system less reliable for the benefit of a very narrow
use case.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (474 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists