On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 05:58:42AM +0000, Xiubo Li-B47053 wrote:
> Hi Dan, Vinod,
>
>
> > > +static int fsl_sai_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) {
> > [...]
> > > +
> > > + sai->dma_params_rx.addr = res->start + SAI_RDR;
> > > + sai->dma_params_rx.maxburst = 6;
> > > + index = of_property_match_string(np, "dma-names", "rx");
> > > + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "dmas", "#dma-cells", index,
> > > + &dma_args);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + sai->dma_params_rx.slave_id = dma_args.args[1];
> > > +
> > > + sai->dma_params_tx.addr = res->start + SAI_TDR;
> > > + sai->dma_params_tx.maxburst = 6;
> > > + index = of_property_match_string(np, "dma-names", "tx");
> > > + ret = of_parse_phandle_with_args(np, "dmas", "#dma-cells", index,
> > > + &dma_args);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + sai->dma_params_tx.slave_id = dma_args.args[1];
> >
> > The driver should not have to manually parse the dma devicetree
> > properties, this is something that should be handled by the dma engine
> > driver.
> >
>
> What do you think about the DMA slave_id ?
> I have been noticed by one colleague that this should be parsed here, which
> is from your opinions ?
Sure slave_id can be parsed here, but IMO it should be programmed via the
dma_slave_confog into the respective channel
--
~Vinod
>
>
> > > +
> > > + ret = snd_soc_register_component(&pdev->dev, &fsl_component,
> > > + &fsl_sai_dai, 1);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > +
> > > + ret = fsl_pcm_dma_init(pdev);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + goto out;
>
>
--
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
