On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 06:23:52PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:00:41AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > + This should NOT be set or expected to be set for memcpy operations > > > > How about "Drivers that implement memcpy operations don't need to implement > > this call." ? It makes it clearer that drivers that support both slave and > > memcpy must implement dma_slave_config. > > That is a problem we want to fix of not having drivers which implement both > slave and memcpy rely on dma_slave_config for memcpy operations. Maxime got > bitten by that recently so lets fix documentation for this I really think that while the documentation should make it clear, we should be able to support dmaengine drivers that implement both slave and async operations. It is totally allowed by the framework for now, and some hardware doesn't make any distinction between what's considered a slave transfer and a memcpy for example. So I'm not really convinced we should make that distinction in the framework either. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
