Hi Laurent,
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Laurent Pinchart
<laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I actually have the opposite problem, in my case channels of physically
> separate DMA engines can be used interchangeably to serve the system's slaves.
> Using the DMA engine DT bindings, DT nodes of the slaves currently reference a
> specific DMA engine, even if they can be served by both. This leads to limited
> dynamic channel allocation capabilities (especially when taking into account
> lazy channel allocation as mentioned in another mail in this thread).
What about adding a property to the first one, referencing the second
(or the other way around, don't know what's the easiest to implement)?
dmac0: dma-controller@e6700000 {
...
renesas,alternative = <&dmac1>;
...
};
dmac1: dma-controller@e6720000 {
...
};
That would avoid having to bind a slave device explicitly to a single
dmac, or having to bind all slave devices to all dmacs.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
