Hi Vinod, Laurent, Magnus Thank you for your feedback > From my side anything is fine really, and I agree that the DT > integration patch looked rather "special". =) > > At the same time I do think it makes sense to model the DT after the > hardware. So if there is a separate DMA controller device then I can't > see what is wrong with representing that in DT as a separate device. > That aside, the current implementation may not have been entirely > clean so perhaps we can begin by fixing that and see where that leads > us. > > So I wonder as an incremental approach, how about simply reworking the > DT interface (old code has 200+ channels mapped out individually) to > something more manageable (maybe 20+ groups instead)? If that still > seems completely wrong DT-wise then we can look into how to rework the > architecture. Yes indeed, it needs too many DT nodes in current implementation (total 220 node). and I can agree that it is one of concern about Vinod/Laurent. It could be reduced to 22 node if I fixuped current implementation to calculate ID by DMAEngine driver side. It is not full-patchset, but I send this fixup patch as [RFC] Best regards --- Kuninori Morimoto -- 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
