linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] [RFC] dmaengine: add fifo

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]

Date:   Fri, 19 Jul 2019 10:34:59 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Sameer Pujar <spujar@...dia.com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Cc:     dan.j.williams@...el.com, tiwai@...e.com, jonathanh@...dia.com,
        dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        sharadg@...dia.com, rlokhande@...dia.com, dramesh@...dia.com,
        mkumard@...dia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] dmaengine: add fifo_size member

On 05-07-19, 11:45, Sameer Pujar wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> What are your final thoughts regarding this?

Hi sameer,

Sorry for the delay in replying

On this, I am inclined to think that dma driver should not be involved.
The ADMAIF needs this configuration and we should take the path of
dma_router for this piece and add features like this to it

> 
> Thanks,
> Sameer.
> 
> > > Where does ADMAIF driver reside in kernel, who configures it for normal
> > > dma txns..?
> > Not yet, we are in the process of upstreaming ADMAIF driver.
> > To describe briefly, audio subsystem is using ALSA SoC(ASoC) layer.
> > ADMAIF is
> > registered as platform driver and exports DMA functionality. It
> > registers PCM
> > devices for each Rx/Tx ADMAIF channel. During PCM playback/capture
> > operations,
> > ALSA callbacks configure DMA channel using API dmaengine_slave_config().
> > RFC patch proposed, is to help populate FIFO_SIZE value as well during
> > above
> > call, since ADMA requires it.
> > > 
> > > Also it wold have helped the long discussion if that part was made clear
> > > rather than talking about peripheral all this time :(
> > Thought it was clear, though should have avoided using 'peripheral' in
> > the
> > discussions. Sorry for the confusion.

-- 
~Vinod