Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-02-07 Thread Haavard Skinnemoen
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:08:35 -0700 "Dan Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 30, 2008 5:26 AM, Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [..] > > Right. I'll add a "unsigned int engine_type" field so that engine > > drivers can go ahead and extend the standard dma_device structure. >

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-02-06 Thread Dan Williams
On Jan 30, 2008 5:26 AM, Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [..] > Right. I'll add a "unsigned int engine_type" field so that engine > drivers can go ahead and extend the standard dma_device structure. > Maybe we should add a "void *platform_data" field to the dma_slave > struct as well

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-31 Thread Haavard Skinnemoen
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 04:51:03 -0800 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First steps are after all followed by second steps, and often > by third steps. It's not "overengineering" to recognize when > those steps necessarily have a direction. But it might be considered overengineering to act

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-31 Thread Haavard Skinnemoen
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 00:27:24 -0800 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > So basically, you're asking for maximum flexibility with minimum > > overhead. > > That's always a goal, but that's not what I said. I was pointing out > one

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-31 Thread David Brownell
On Thursday 31 January 2008, Paul Mundt wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:27:24AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > So basically, you're asking for maximum flexibility with minimum > > > overhead. > > > > That's always a goal, but that'

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-31 Thread Paul Mundt
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 12:27:24AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > So basically, you're asking for maximum flexibility with minimum > > overhead. I agree that should be the ultimate goal, but wouldn't it > > be better to start with somethi

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-31 Thread David Brownell
On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > > Example: USB tends to use one packet per "frame" and have the DMA > > > > request signal mean "give me the next frame". It's sometimes been > > > > very important to use use the tuning options to avoid some on-chip > > > > race condi

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-30 Thread David Brownell
On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Dan Williams wrote: > On Jan 30, 2008 3:52 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > > Descriptor-based vs. register-based transfers sounds like something the > > > DMA engine driver is free to decide

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-30 Thread Dan Williams
On Jan 30, 2008 3:52 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > Descriptor-based vs. register-based transfers sounds like something the > > DMA engine driver is free to decide on its own. > > Not entirely. The current interface has "

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-30 Thread Haavard Skinnemoen
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 02:52:49 -0800 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > Descriptor-based vs. register-based transfers sounds like something the > > DMA engine driver is free to decide on its own. > > Not entirely. The current int

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-30 Thread David Brownell
On Wednesday 30 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > Ok, I didn't bother to check the specs, as I think your main argument > is that these options vary from controller to controller, so we need to > make this extensible. > > Not all options are specific to DMA slave transfers either, although

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-30 Thread Haavard Skinnemoen
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:30:05 -0800 David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 29 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > > @@ -297,6 +356,13 @@ struct dma_device { > > struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *(*device_prep_dma_interrupt)( > > struct dma_chan *chan); >

Re: [RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-29 Thread David Brownell
On Tuesday 29 January 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > @@ -297,6 +356,13 @@ struct dma_device { > struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *(*device_prep_dma_interrupt)( > struct dma_chan *chan); >   > +   struct dma_slave_descriptor *(*device_prep_slave)( > +   struc

[RFC v2 2/5] dmaengine: Add slave DMA interface

2008-01-29 Thread Haavard Skinnemoen
Add a new struct dma_slave with information that the DMA engine driver needs to set up slave transfers to and from a slave device. Add a "slave" pointer to the dma_client struct. This must point to a valid dma_slave structure iff the DMA_SLAVE capability is requested. The DMA engine driver may use