Hi Vinod, On 2015/10/5 23:37, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:48:59AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:Add dmaengine_get_quirks API for peripheral devices to query quirks if they need it to make special workaround due to broken dma controller design. Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Changes in v5: None Changes in v4: None Changes in v3: None Changes in v2: None Changes in v1: None include/linux/dmaengine.h | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h index e2f5eb4..5174ca4 100644 --- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h +++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h @@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ struct dma_device { int (*device_config)(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dma_slave_config *config); + int (*device_get_quirks)(struct dma_chan *chan);And why do we want to expose this to users? THis doesnt seem right!
Basically I agree not to expose dma's quirk to slave controllers...But, the fact I mentioned on cover letter explain the reasons why I have to let slave controllers know that they are working with a broken dma. It's a dilemma that if we don't want that to be exposed(let slave controllers' driver get the info via a API), we have to add broken quirk for all of them ,here and there, which seems to be a disaster:(
I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions at your earliest convenience. :)
A quirk may exists but should be handled inside the controller driver and do appropriate action. You don't tell users or expect them to handle these
-- Best Regards Shawn Lin -- 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
