On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 21:22 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > On 15 October 2011 23:05, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >
> > > Another alternate approach could be to add one more argument to
> > > prep_slave_sg API which allows us to pass additional runtime
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Jassi Brar
wrote:
>
> On 15 October 2011 23:05, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> > Another alternate approach could be to add one more argument to
> > prep_slave_sg API which allows us to pass additional runtime
specific
> > parameters. This can be NULL and unused for exi
On Mon, 2011-10-17 at 21:22 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On 15 October 2011 23:05, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> > Another alternate approach could be to add one more argument to
> > prep_slave_sg API which allows us to pass additional runtime specific
> > parameters. This can be NULL and unused for existi
On 15 October 2011 23:05, Vinod Koul wrote:
> Another alternate approach could be to add one more argument to
> prep_slave_sg API which allows us to pass additional runtime specific
> parameters. This can be NULL and unused for existing drivers and used in
> RIO and any future subsystems which wa
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> > ... skip ...
> > > >
> > > > Second, having ability to pass private target information allows me to
> > > > pass
> > > > information about remote target device on per-transfer basis.
> > > Okay, then why not pass the dma address and make y
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 12:08 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
> Vinod Koul wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 09:52 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
Adding Jassi to this and sorry for late reply...
> ... skip ...
> > >
> > > Second, having ability to pass private target information allows me to
Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 09:52 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
> >
> > My concern here is that other subsystems may use/request DMA_SLAVE
> > channel(s) as well
> > and wrongfully acquire one that belongs to RapidIO. In this case separation
> > with another
> > flag may have
Dan J Williams wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Bounine, Alexandre
> wrote:
> >
> > My concern here is that other subsystems may use/request DMA_SLAVE
channel(s) as well
> > and wrongfully acquire one that belongs to RapidIO. In this case
separation with another
> > flag may have a sens
On Mon, 2011-10-03 at 09:52 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
> Vinod Koul wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 17:38 -0400, Alexandre Bounine wrote:
> > Please CC *maintainers* on your patches, get_maintainers.pl will tell
> > you who. Adding Dan here
>
> Based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/14/
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Bounine, Alexandre
wrote:
> Vinod Koul wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 17:38 -0400, Alexandre Bounine wrote:
>> Please CC *maintainers* on your patches, get_maintainers.pl will tell
>> you who. Adding Dan here
>
> Based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/14/67 and u
Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 17:38 -0400, Alexandre Bounine wrote:
> Please CC *maintainers* on your patches, get_maintainers.pl will tell
> you who. Adding Dan here
Based on https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/14/67 and use of DMA_SLAVE in this
patch I decided that you are the best match
On Fri, 2011-09-30 at 17:38 -0400, Alexandre Bounine wrote:
Please CC *maintainers* on your patches, get_maintainers.pl will tell
you who. Adding Dan here
> Adds DMA Engine framework support into RapidIO subsystem.
> Uses DMA Engine DMA_SLAVE interface to generate data transfers to/from remote
> Ra
12 matches
Mail list logo
