From: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
To: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
Cc: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@mvista.com>,
"Gupta, Ajay Kumar" <ajay.gupta@ti.com>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com"
<davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: add CPPI 4.1 DMA support
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:12:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110104191236.GG7771@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110103204952.GB2240@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [110103 12:49]:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 05:19:45PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> Frankly speaking, I doubt that drivers/dma/ will have place for the
> >>purely MUSB specific DMA engines such as the named ones (there's no TUSB
> >>DMA BTW -- it uses OMAP DMA).
> >
> >Long term, we need to kill off all these platform private DMA interfaces.
> >There's a growing amount of IP that's being shared not only between ARM
> >silicon vendors, but also across architectures, and having to re-implement
> >drivers because the underlying DMA engine is different is not feasible.
> >
> >For example, we're seeing ARMs primecells being used with various
> >different DMA controllers in various different ARM SoCs. I've heard
> >rumours of them appearing in MIPS or PPC stuff as well. We're seeing
> >PXA peripheral IP appearing in x86 stuff too.
> >
> >We can't have drivers tied to their SoC DMA engines, and we can't continue
> >having SoC DMA engines implementing their own unique APIs. We do need to
> >get on top of this before it becomes a major problem (if it hasn't
> >already).
> >
> >The DMA engine API is still evolving, and should not be taken as concrete
> >- I've recently been bringing up a number of points with Dan on various
> >aspects of the API, some of which ultimately will lead to changes to the
> >async-tx API, and others which hopefully will mean that the DMA slave
> >API is better documented.
>
> I couldn't agree more with you Russell. If the API isn't enough
> currently, we can always propose an extension.
>
> Having all sorts of SoC-specific "APIs" has already caused enough
> problems and it still does (non-generic IRQ handling on
> twl?030, menelaus, cbus - which isn't in mainline yet -, etc,
> non-generic McBSP usage, non-generic GPMC usage, etc etc). So, if we can
> plan for making use of generic APIs, let's do so.
Yes I too agree with this. We just need to do whatever it takes to
make the DMA engine suitable for all drivers.
Regards,
Tony
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: add CPPI 4.1 DMA support
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 11:12:36 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110104191236.GG7771@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110103204952.GB2240@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com>
* Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com> [110103 12:49]:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 05:19:45PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> Frankly speaking, I doubt that drivers/dma/ will have place for the
> >>purely MUSB specific DMA engines such as the named ones (there's no TUSB
> >>DMA BTW -- it uses OMAP DMA).
> >
> >Long term, we need to kill off all these platform private DMA interfaces.
> >There's a growing amount of IP that's being shared not only between ARM
> >silicon vendors, but also across architectures, and having to re-implement
> >drivers because the underlying DMA engine is different is not feasible.
> >
> >For example, we're seeing ARMs primecells being used with various
> >different DMA controllers in various different ARM SoCs. I've heard
> >rumours of them appearing in MIPS or PPC stuff as well. We're seeing
> >PXA peripheral IP appearing in x86 stuff too.
> >
> >We can't have drivers tied to their SoC DMA engines, and we can't continue
> >having SoC DMA engines implementing their own unique APIs. We do need to
> >get on top of this before it becomes a major problem (if it hasn't
> >already).
> >
> >The DMA engine API is still evolving, and should not be taken as concrete
> >- I've recently been bringing up a number of points with Dan on various
> >aspects of the API, some of which ultimately will lead to changes to the
> >async-tx API, and others which hopefully will mean that the DMA slave
> >API is better documented.
>
> I couldn't agree more with you Russell. If the API isn't enough
> currently, we can always propose an extension.
>
> Having all sorts of SoC-specific "APIs" has already caused enough
> problems and it still does (non-generic IRQ handling on
> twl?030, menelaus, cbus - which isn't in mainline yet -, etc,
> non-generic McBSP usage, non-generic GPMC usage, etc etc). So, if we can
> plan for making use of generic APIs, let's do so.
Yes I too agree with this. We just need to do whatever it takes to
make the DMA engine suitable for all drivers.
Regards,
Tony
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-01-04 19:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-15 18:14 [PATCH v5 1/3] ARM: add CPPI 4.1 DMA support Sergei Shtylyov
2010-05-28 20:55 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2010-09-28 9:13 ` Linus Walleij
2010-09-28 9:13 ` Linus Walleij
2010-09-28 10:13 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2010-09-28 10:13 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-03 16:06 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-03 16:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-03 16:34 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-03 17:01 ` Gupta, Ajay Kumar
2011-01-03 17:01 ` Gupta, Ajay Kumar
2011-01-03 17:07 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-03 17:07 ` Sergei Shtylyov
[not found] ` <4D220246.5020303-Igf4POYTYCDQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
2011-01-03 17:15 ` Gupta, Ajay Kumar
2011-01-03 17:15 ` Gupta, Ajay Kumar
2011-01-03 20:44 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-03 20:44 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 13:06 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-04 13:06 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-04 14:06 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 14:06 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 14:40 ` Ming Lei
2011-01-04 14:40 ` Ming Lei
2011-01-04 14:56 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 14:56 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 15:41 ` Ming Lei
2011-01-04 15:41 ` Ming Lei
2011-01-04 18:42 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 18:42 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 18:50 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-04 18:50 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-04 16:37 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-04 16:37 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2011-01-05 22:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-05 22:03 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-03 17:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-03 17:19 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-03 20:49 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-03 20:49 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-01-04 19:12 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2011-01-04 19:12 ` Tony Lindgren
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110104191236.GG7771@atomide.com \
--to=tony@atomide.com \
--cc=ajay.gupta@ti.com \
--cc=balbi@ti.com \
--cc=davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=sshtylyov@mvista.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.