From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lars@metafoo.de (Lars-Peter Clausen) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:09:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the dma controller API In-Reply-To: <20140801171551.GG8181@intel.com> References: <1406736193-26685-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20140730160607.GM8181@intel.com> <20140731074440.GY3952@lukather> <53DA3A48.8070900@metafoo.de> <20140731161331.GD3952@lukather> <53DA74B3.6060502@metafoo.de> <20140731173730.GH3952@lukather> <53DB490A.5040709@metafoo.de> <20140801085707.GI3952@lukather> <20140801171551.GG8181@intel.com> Message-ID: <53DBD7CD.3030103@metafoo.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/01/2014 07:15 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:57:07AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:00:10AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>> On 07/31/2014 07:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:54:11PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>>>> On 07/31/2014 06:13 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> From what you're saying, and judging from the drivers that already >>>>>> implement it, can't it be moved directly to the framework itself ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What exactly do you mean by moving it directly to the framework? The >>>>> slave_caps API is part of the DMAengine framework. >>>> >>>> Not its implementation, which is defined by each and every driver, >>>> while the behaviour of device_slave_caps is rather generic. >>>> >>> >>> Do you mean something like adding a dma_slave_caps struct field to >>> the DMA channel that gets initialized when the channel is created >>> and then remove the callback? That makes some sense. >> >> I was rather thinking into something like: >> - Splitting device_control into independant functions > I like this part :) I started working on this a while ago by splitting out the slave_config functionality into its own callback. Haven't managed to finalize it since it wasn't really top priority. - Lars From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755638AbaHASJW (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:09:22 -0400 Received: from smtp-out-166.synserver.de ([212.40.185.166]:1035 "EHLO smtp-out-166.synserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751694AbaHASJT (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Aug 2014 14:09:19 -0400 X-SynServer-TrustedSrc: 1 X-SynServer-AuthUser: lars@metafoo.de X-SynServer-PPID: 16285 Message-ID: <53DBD7CD.3030103@metafoo.de> Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 20:09:17 +0200 From: Lars-Peter Clausen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Vinod Koul , Maxime Ripard CC: Dan Williams , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Russell King , Arnd Bergmann , =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Antoine_T=E9nart?= , Thomas Petazzoni , Alexandre Belloni , Boris Brezillon , Matt Porter , laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com, ludovic.desroches@atmel.com, Gregory Clement , Nicolas Ferre Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the dma controller API References: <1406736193-26685-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20140730160607.GM8181@intel.com> <20140731074440.GY3952@lukather> <53DA3A48.8070900@metafoo.de> <20140731161331.GD3952@lukather> <53DA74B3.6060502@metafoo.de> <20140731173730.GH3952@lukather> <53DB490A.5040709@metafoo.de> <20140801085707.GI3952@lukather> <20140801171551.GG8181@intel.com> In-Reply-To: <20140801171551.GG8181@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/01/2014 07:15 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:57:07AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:00:10AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>> On 07/31/2014 07:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:54:11PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: >>>>> On 07/31/2014 06:13 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>>> [...] >>>>>> From what you're saying, and judging from the drivers that already >>>>>> implement it, can't it be moved directly to the framework itself ? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What exactly do you mean by moving it directly to the framework? The >>>>> slave_caps API is part of the DMAengine framework. >>>> >>>> Not its implementation, which is defined by each and every driver, >>>> while the behaviour of device_slave_caps is rather generic. >>>> >>> >>> Do you mean something like adding a dma_slave_caps struct field to >>> the DMA channel that gets initialized when the channel is created >>> and then remove the callback? That makes some sense. >> >> I was rather thinking into something like: >> - Splitting device_control into independant functions > I like this part :) I started working on this a while ago by splitting out the slave_config functionality into its own callback. Haven't managed to finalize it since it wasn't really top priority. - Lars