> > On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 12:22 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > >> If you are correct to insist that DMA needs yo be supported in the new >> driver *even* with old firmware, then yes, maybe. > > if DMA gives a performance boost for all workloads, what is the argument > for not always enabling it ? If DMA gives a performance boost for all workloads, what bloody idiot defined or reviewed a DT binding that didn't include the information which is required to uae DMA? :) >> The alternative is a quirk to "fix" the DT up on the affected boards and >> not actually doing the special cases in the driver itself. But that can >> be >> seen as an implementation detail. > > I don't understand why having the soc-foo.h with the internal interrupt > mapping in the kernel tree is a no-no, whereas it's ok to add the > missing part of it in the form of fixups or directly in driver code. It's the difference between doing it as a matter of course, and doing it only in the very rare "OMG we fucked up but we really *need* to fix it up this time" case. -- dwmw2 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
