On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/7/2009 12:46 PM, jassi brar wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 02:03:08PM +0900, Joonyoung Shim wrote: >>>> On 11/5/2009 1:16 PM, jassi brar wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Mark Brown >> <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> These patches is not about changing naming conventions. Only changes, necessary >>>>> to have a clean and consistent namespace after integrating PCM driver, have >>>>> been made. >>>> Agree, but you already are changing the prefix from s3c24xx to s3c. >>> I also agree with this - if we're renaming this driver anyway then >>> changing the prefix for it while we're at it seems reasonable, it means >>> one less change in the future. >> renaming is a box of worms which i dont wanna be the first to open. >> I would wait for a complete discussion on the naming conventions to happen >> and have a decision made before I do renaming. >> Though, I can resend the patch with samsung_ prefix too, if everyone >> is willing to >> hold their peace forever. >> >>>>> but if we try so, we have the following >>>>> 1) s3c24xx_pcm_dma_params -> s3c_dma_dma_params >>>>> 2) s3c24xx_pcm_preallocate_dma_buffer -> s3c_dma_preallocate_dma_buffer >>>>> 3) s3c24xx_pcm_dmamask -> s3c_dma_dmamask >>>>> none of which seem very nice. >>>> You can modify the names for the consistent prefix. If you >>>> use s3c_dma_ prefix, for example, s3c24xx_pcm_dma_params can be to >>>> s3c_dma_params. >>> I tend to agree with this. The actual rename needs to happen to free up >>> the PCM name for the driver for the PCM hardware. >> >> So taking into account the aforementioned point as well, you suggest >> 1) s3c24xx_pcm_dma_params -> samsung_dma_params >> 2) s3c24xx_pcm_preallocate_dma_buffer -> samsung_preallocate_dma_buffer >> 3) s3c24xx_pcm_dmamask -> samsung_dmamask >> 4) s3c24xx_pcm_XXX -> samsung_dma_XXX >> > > Hmm, i was missing about the DMA on the prior mail. We should consider > the DMA with this. The DMA chip(PL330) of s5p CPUs differs with s3c > CPUs. We first should desided whether use the existing DMA interface of > s3c. If we use it, this prefix is better samsung than s3c. > > The other option is using the DMA subsystem about s5p DMA. This need > also implementing ASoC platform driver of s5p for DMA, so it is better > two each different prefix than samsung. I have posted the s5p DMA driver > using the DMA subsystem. > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2009-September/000810.html It doesn't make much sense to base new drivers over a DMA driver which hasn't been accepted(no ACK no NAK to your code). So, currently I assume PL330 DMA api same as that of PL080. _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
