On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 11:06:13AM +0530, Jiang, Dave wrote: > > > > On Aug 2, 2017, at 10:25 PM, Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 10:41:51AM +0530, Jiang, Dave wrote: > >> > >> > >>>> On Aug 2, 2017, at 9:58 PM, Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 02:13:56PM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On 08/02/2017 02:10 PM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > >>>>> On 8/2/2017 4:52 PM, Dave Jiang wrote: > >>>>>>> Do we need a new API / new function, or new capability? > >>>>>> Hmmm...you are right. I wonder if we need something like DMA_SG cap.... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Unfortunately, DMA_SG means something else. Maybe, we need DMA_MEMCPY_SG > >>>>> to be similar with DMA_MEMSET_SG. > >>>> > >>>> I'm ok with that if Vinod is. > >>> > >>> So what exactly is the ask here, are you trying to do MEMCPY or SG or MEMSET > >>> or all :). We should have done bitfields for this though... > >> > >> Add DMA_MEMCPY_SG to transaction type. > > > > Not MEMSET right, then why not use DMA_SG, DMA_SG is supposed for > > scatterlist to scatterlist copy which is used to check for > > device_prep_dma_sg() calls > > > Right. But we are doing flat buffer to/from scatterlist, not sg to sg. So > we need something separate than what DMA_SG is used for. Hmm, its SG-buffer and its memcpy, so should we call it DMA_SG_BUFFER, since it is not memset (or is it) I would not call it memset, or maybe we should also change DMA_SG to DMA_SG_SG to make it terribly clear :D -- ~Vinod -- 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
