On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 08:09:17PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 08/01/2014 07:15 PM, Vinod Koul wrote: > >On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:57:07AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:00:10AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > >>>On 07/31/2014 07:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>>>On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:54:11PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > >>>>>On 07/31/2014 06:13 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >>>>>[...] > >>>>>> From what you're saying, and judging from the drivers that already > >>>>>>implement it, can't it be moved directly to the framework itself ? > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>What exactly do you mean by moving it directly to the framework? The > >>>>>slave_caps API is part of the DMAengine framework. > >>>> > >>>>Not its implementation, which is defined by each and every driver, > >>>>while the behaviour of device_slave_caps is rather generic. > >>>> > >>> > >>>Do you mean something like adding a dma_slave_caps struct field to > >>>the DMA channel that gets initialized when the channel is created > >>>and then remove the callback? That makes some sense. > >> > >>I was rather thinking into something like: > >> - Splitting device_control into independant functions > >I like this part :) > > I started working on this a while ago by splitting out the > slave_config functionality into its own callback. Haven't managed to > finalize it since it wasn't really top priority. He, I've done the same yesterday... Do you plan on submitting it soon, or should I keep going? Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
