Sergei Shtylyov <sshtyl...@ru.mvista.com> writes: > Kevin Hilman wrote: > >>>>>>Some of the comments about my earlier EDMA patches touched on issues >>>>>>in that programming interface, like: > >>>>>>- The single call to allocate DMA resources is overly complex. > >>>>>>- Its programming model doesn't match the hardware well: talking >>>>>> about master vs. slave, not channels and parameter RAM; confusing >>>>>> those two resource types (especially when allocating); etc. > >>>>>>- Since the calls used a "davinci_" prefix, they wouldn't be very >>>>>> appropriate for the DMA in the OMAP-L137 chip. > >>>>> We were going to move the generic part of >>>>>arch/arm/mach-davinci/dma.c (alomg with other common code b/w so >>>>>called OMAP-L1x and DaVinci) to arch/arm/plat-davinci/ but the rename >>>>>seems reasonable anyway. > >>>>I keep hearing things like this, but have not yet seen any patches, or >>>>technical arguments for doing so. > >>> The technical argument is simple: sharing the code for two similar >>>platforms, the EDMA code in particular. > >> The code already is shared. > > How? You're not supposed to looks for the shared code in other > mach-*/ dirs, are you?
I'm talking about DaVinci git tree here, not TI/MV trees. There is no plat-davinci, only a mach-davinci. The current DMA code is shared across the various devices currently supported in DaVinci git. The point I'm trying to make is that I still do not agree with the need to create a plat-davinci for "common" code. The reasons I've heard so far have not been convincing. Kevin _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
