Hi Morimoto-san, On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:23 AM, Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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] Sounds good. Can you please let me know exactly which patch series should I look at? Thanks, / magnus -- 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
