On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 12:33:39PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 02.10.2012 11:37, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 10:48:53AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > > >> I also agree that ifdef is not a good solution. > >> It is better to have this information passed as device_data and via DT it > >> can > >> be decided based on the compatible property for the device. > > > > That's not really the problem here - the problem is that the APIs used > > to get the SRAM are DaVinci only so it's not possible to build on OMAP > > or other platforms. The SRAM code needs to move to a standard API. > > What about following Matt Porter's idea and ignore the SRAM code > entirely and port the entire PCM code to generic dmaengine code first? > The EDMA driver needs to learn support for cyclic DMA for that, and I > might give that a try in near future. > > Later on, the SRAM ping-pong code can get added back using genalloc > functions, as Sekhar proposed. That needs to be done by someone who has > access to a Davinci board though, I only have a AM33xx/OMAP here.
I already backed away from that idea since the older SoCs without a FIFO absolutely need ping-pong buffering in SRAM. -Matt _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
