At Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:21:30 +0100, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:11:38 +0100 > Sedji Gaouaou <sedji.gaouaou@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Hans-Christian Egtvedt a écrit : > > >> Actually there are some differences, AT91 does not use a DMA, we > > >> use a specific IP(PDC) to transer the data... > > >> > > > > > > PDC is still DMA ;) I guess AT91 uses the "old" PDC and not PDCA? > > > > > I don't know about any PDCA...so yes I guess we are using the old > > one... > > > > PDCA is a centralized version of PDC, it might be we only use it on > AVR32 devices for the time being. > > > >> Maybe we could share the same code we some #define in it? > > >> > > > > > > Yes, it should be simple to add an additional #define in kconfig. > > > > > > config SND_ATMEL_AC97C_PDC > > > bool > > > depends on ARCH_AT91 > > > > > > And then have some ifdefs/else around the DMA stuff, much like the > > > atmel-mci driver does today. > > > > > I don't know which solution is the dest: ifdef or as Mark's one... > > > > The PDC DMA is very simple, so will not add a lot of additional > bits'n'bytes. So IMHO I think going for all in one source would be the > best. > > Should I move the AC97C driver to sound/drivers instead then, and then > leave it open for you to implement the extra parts for AT91 devices? Well, in general, sound/drivers is for generic drivers that aren't specific to certain architecture. I think it's OK to put it in sound/atmel. Takashi _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
