[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161209175349.GL6408@localhost>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:23:49 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
To: Måns Rullgård <mans@...sr.com>
Cc: Sebastian Frias <sf84@...oste.net>, Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jon Mason <jdmason@...zu.us>, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>,
Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@...madesigns.com>
Subject: Re: Tearing down DMA transfer setup after DMA client has finished
On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:28:01PM +0000, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com> writes:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:25:57AM +0100, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >>
> >> What concrete solution do you propose?
> >
> > I have already proposed two solutions.
> >
> > A) Request a channel only when you need it. Obviously we can't do virtual
> > channels with this (though we should still use virt-channels framework).
> > The sbox setup and teardown can be done as part of channel request and
> > freeup. PL08x already does this.
> >
> > Downside is that we can only have as many consumers at a time as channels.
> >
> > I have not heard any technical reason for not doing this apart from drivers
> > grab the channel at probe, which is incorrect and needs to be fixed
> > irrespective of the problem at hand.
> >
> > This is my preferred option.
>
> Sorry, but this is not acceptable.
without outlining why..
>
> > B) Create a custom driver specific API. This API for example:
> > sbox_setup(bool enable, ...)
> > can be called by client to explicitly setup and clear up the sbox setting.
> >
> > This way we can have transactions muxed.
> >
> > I have not heard any arguments on why we shouldn't do this except Russell's
> > comment that A) solves this.
>
> Driver-specific interfaces are not the solution. That way lies chaos
> and madness.
Yes fair enough. So would API change which 99% world doesnt need.
> This would all be so much easier if you all would just shut up for a
> moment and let me fix it properly.
Oh please go away, noone is asking you to reply!
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists