... chop chop removing unneeded recipients ....
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Ok, I looked at the driver in more detail now and found the scary parts.
> So it's using the async DMA interface to do synchronous DMA in
> interrupt context in order to transfer the rx data faster than an readsl()
> would, correct?
That's correct, at least for the smc91x.
> It still feels odd to me that there is an entry in the slave map for
> a device that does not have a request line. However, it also seems
> that the entire code in those two drivers that deals with DMA is specific
> to PXA anyway, so maybe it can be done differently: instead of
> calling dma_request_slave_channel_compat() or dma_request_chan()
> with a fake request line, how about calling dma_request_channel()
> with an NULL filter function and data, and have the driver handle
> the empty data case the same way as the rq=-1 case today?
Okay, in this case :
- the channel priority cannot be passed anymore
- and I don't see how this can work :
dma_request_channel()
__dma_request_channel()
find_candidate()
private_candidate(mask, device, fn, fn_param);
/* Here, fn == NULL and fn_param == NULL as per your proposal */
This function will find the first available dma channel, all right, but
no function will be called in pxa_dma driver, and therefore the last
requestor of the channel will be used, which is bad.
>> If you think it's worth it, what is the driving benefit behind ?
> It seems a bit cleaner to only register the tables for the dma lines that
> are actually present on a given chip.
Okay, let's do this.
Cheers.
--
Robert
--
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
