From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 21:34:36 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4 3/5] dmaengine: pxa: add pxa dmaengine driver In-Reply-To: <1432709723.27695.210.camel@x220> (Paul Bolle's message of "Wed, 27 May 2015 08:55:23 +0200") References: <1432589362-23241-1-git-send-email-robert.jarzmik@free.fr> <1432589362-23241-3-git-send-email-robert.jarzmik@free.fr> <1432625314.27695.200.camel@x220> <87siaizguz.fsf@belgarion.home> <1432709723.27695.210.camel@x220> Message-ID: <87k2vtzuer.fsf@belgarion.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Paul Bolle writes: > On Wed, 2015-05-27 at 08:15 +0200, Robert Jarzmik wrote: >> Paul Bolle writes: >> > Was it actually intended for PXA_DMA to be tristate? >> It is designed to be a module, and in the "end" it will be a module. >> >> What is important to understand is the 3 phases which are going to happen : >> - phase 1 : state after this is merged >> pxa_dma must be builtin, for legacy support (see >> pxad_toggle_reserved_channel()). >> - phase 2 : slowly, all the pxa drivers are converted to dmaengine >> - phase 3 : after full conversion, the patch "add support for legacy >> transition" is reverted. >> There pxa_dma will become modular, and the tristate will appear. >> >> In conclusion, it cannot be a module yet, but it will in the future. > > Thanks for this explanation. So I didn't miss a comment or some remark > in a commit explanation, did I? Unfortunately not ;) Cheers. -- Robert