On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 12:10 -0700, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:23:23 +0200
> Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This driver can also use PIO transfers when no DMA channels are
> > available, and for transfers where using DMA may be difficult or
> > impracti
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:56:06AM -0700, Tim Bird wrote:
> Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > When you consider it stabilized could you please drop me a
> > new mail including full changelog and updated patch.
> >
> > And please cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + linux-kernel on the
> > submission.
>
> Sam,
>
> I ha
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:10:14 +0200
Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Btw, it's probably not that hard to rip the DMA bits out and post them
> as a separate patch. This would mean that:
> * Pierre can merge the driver independently of the other 5 patches
*snip*
>
> If that sou
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:23:23 +0200
Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This driver can also use PIO transfers when no DMA channels are
> available, and for transfers where using DMA may be difficult or
> impractical for some reason (e.g. the DMA setup overhead is usually
> not worth it
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:24 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 27 June 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> The only effect of the HAVE_DMA_ENGINE would be to not show an empty
>> kconfig menu.
>
> Well, no. It would also make the network layer memcpy "acceleration"
> option unavai
On Friday 27 June 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> The only effect of the HAVE_DMA_ENGINE would be to not show an empty
> kconfig menu.
Well, no. It would also make the network layer memcpy "acceleration"
option unavailable when there was no underlying engine ... similarly
with other pointless "we don
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 11:24:42AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 27 June 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > The only effect of the HAVE_DMA_ENGINE would be to not show an empty
> > kconfig menu.
>
> Well, no. It would also make the network layer memcpy "acceleration"
> option unavailable wh
On Fri, 27 Jun 2008 09:37:21 -0700
David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday 26 June 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I agree with removing the arch dependency, and I do not think we
> > necessarily need to add HAVE_DMA_ENGINE.
>
> I think a HAVE_DMA_ENGINE would be better than what yo
On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 09:37:21AM -0700, David Brownell wrote:
> On Thursday 26 June 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> > I agree with removing the arch dependency, and I do not think we
> > necessarily need to add HAVE_DMA_ENGINE.
>
> I think a HAVE_DMA_ENGINE would be better than what you're doing
> b
Hello,
I have several projects where I have the need for a microcontroller and
I considered to use 8051 compatibles but not it is not more possible
because I need an USBHID-PDU device interface, which can only solved
using Linux.
I like to use the AT91SAM7S and the AT91SAM7A3 (it has 16
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Dan Williams wrote:
> I agree with removing the arch dependency, and I do not think we
> necessarily need to add HAVE_DMA_ENGINE.
I think a HAVE_DMA_ENGINE would be better than what you're doing
below: moving the arch dependency into the network code, and
adding this !HI
11 matches
Mail list logo
