From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vinod.koul@intel.com (Vinod Koul) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 08:52:13 +0530 Subject: [PATCH] dma: sun4i: expose block size and wait cycle configuration to DMA users In-Reply-To: <20160314114641.GC30977@lukather> References: <20160307160857.577bb04d@bbrezillon> <20160307203024.GD8418@lukather> <20160308025547.GI11154@localhost> <20160309120627.67612b1d@bbrezillon> <20160311062607.GP11154@localhost> <20160311104552.23e06a16@bbrezillon> <20160311100902.GY11154@localhost> <20160311105549.GZ8418@lukather> <20160311111825.GC11154@localhost> <20160314114641.GC30977@lukather> Message-ID: <20160316032213.GP13211@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 12:46:41PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 04:48:26PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > > But this nees to be property for clients and not driver. Client can then > > > > program these > > > > > > Yes, totally. The question here is how the clients give that > > > information to the driver. > > > > For this part am not worried. If we can generalize this then we add to > > dma_slave_config. Otherwise an exported symbol from driver should be fine. > > It's actually what we would like to avoid. > > We have two potential provider driver that would need such an > interface, and we have customer drivers that would be able to use any > of these two, depending on which SoCs we're talking about. > > Maintaining some logic in each and every driver in that case to know > which one of this symbol is to be called seems counterproductive and > painful. You didn't specify which one you want to avoid, and my guess is latter choice and not former :) As I said, if it's something we can use in few examples and describe generically I do not mind adding to dma_slave_config -- ~Vinod -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: