On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 10:19 PM, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> ... 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
Right, but it could just always use a static priority, right?
> - 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.
Can't you just reset those in pxad_free_chan_resources()?
Arnd
--
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
