[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <38f686ae-66fa-0e3a-ec2e-a09fc4054ac4@physik.fu-berlin.de>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 21:21:16 +0100
From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
dmaengine <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards
dma_request_slave_chan()
On 2/3/20 2:32 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Both rspi and sh-msiof have users on legacy SH (i.e. without DT):
FWIW, there is a patch set by Yoshinori Sato to add device tree support
for classical SuperH hardware. It was never merged, unfortunately :(.
> Anyone who cares for DMA on SuperH?
What is DMA used for on SuperH? Wouldn't dropping it cut support for
essential hardware features?
Adrian
--
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@...ian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
Powered by blists - more mailing lists