Re: [PATCH 2/9] mmc: tmio: tmio_mmc_host has .dma

Kuninori Morimoto
2015-01-08T07:30:40Z

Hi Arnd, Ulf

> > > > dmaengine: shdma: use normal interface for passing slave id
> > > >
> > > > The shmobile platform is one of only two users of the slave_id field
> > > > in dma_slave_config, which is incompatible with the way that the
> > > > dmaengine API normally works.
> > > >
> > > > I've had a closer look at the existing code now and found that all
> > > > slave drivers that pass a slave_id in dma_slave_config for SH do that
> > > > right after passing the same ID into shdma_chan_filter, so we can just
> > > > rely on that. However, the various shdma drivers currently do not
> > > > remember the slave ID that was passed into the filter function when
> > > > used in non-DT mode and only check the value to find a matching channel,
> > > > unlike all other drivers.
> > > >
> > > > There might still be drivers that are not part of the kernel that rely
> > > > on setting the slave_id to some other value, so to be on the safe side,
> > > > this adds another 'real_slave_id' field to shdma_chan that remembers
> > > > the ID and uses it when a driver passes a zero slave_id in dma_slave_config,
> > > > like most drivers do.
> > > >
> > > > Eventually, the real_slave_id and slave_id fields should just get merged
> > > > into one field, but that requires other changes.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
> > > > ----
> (snip)
> Either that or undo the change to the type. I originally planned to change the
> sh_mmcif_plat_data to use a void* type already, but then didn't do that because
> it conflicts with your other patch, and I failed to revert my earlier change
> correctly.

Hmm... indeed Arnd's patch and my patch-set conflicts.
I have these patch / patch-set
1) header cleanup for tmio
2) slave_id cleanup for shdma
3) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi

1 ) and 2) conflicts here. one idea is like this
1) header cleanup for tmio
2) add DMA feature for sh_mobile_sdhi
3) slave_id cleanup for shdma

1) and 2) can be controled by Ulf with no-conflict.
if these are merged correctly, I can send 3) to DMAEngine ML.
Then, I can point the Ulf's branch as base branch.

Arnd, Ulf what do you think ?

Best regards
---
Kuninori Morimoto