From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dan Williams Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] DMAENGINE: fixes and PrimeCells Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 10:26:26 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1272848060-28049-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@stericsson.com> <20100507093256.GB19936@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: Received: from mail-px0-f174.google.com ([209.85.212.174]:64807 "EHLO mail-px0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750904Ab0EIR05 (ORCPT ); Sun, 9 May 2010 13:26:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-mmc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org To: jassi brar Cc: Linus Walleij , Russell King - ARM Linux , Ben Dooks , linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:06 AM, jassi brar wrote: > This discussion is purely about what the current DMA API misses and what > a generic DMA API should do. So, that the current DMA API fills up those > gap, if possible. I would love to get started implementing the generic > DMA API for reference but my priorities are decided by my employer. Well, the only significant miss that has been identified so far is dynamic channel allocation for the device-to-mem case. Everything else can be done with small tweaks to the existing interface. But some of this discussion reminds me of Section 2.4 of Documentaion/SubmittingPatches: 4) Don't over-design. Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not be useful: "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler." Let's just wait for the code before outlining what can and cannot be done, especially given where we started [1]. -- Dan [1]: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=include/linux/dmaengine.h;hb=v2.6.18#l160