Hi, On 2018-05-17 09:39, Radhey Shyam Pandey wrote: >> Well, let's see where this is going to go when I can send the patches >> for review. > Thanks all. @Peter: If we have metadata patchset ready may be good > to send an RFC? Sorry for the delay, I got distracted by this: http://www.ti.com/lit/pdf/spruid7 Chapter 10. I have given some tough to the metadata attach patches. In my case the 'metadata' is more like private data section within the DMA descriptor (10.1.2.2.1) which is used by the remote peripheral and the driver for the given peripheral and it is optional. I liked the idea of treating it as metadata as it gives more generic API which can be adopted by other drivers if they need something similar. Another issue I have with the attach metadata way is that it would require one memcpy to copy the data to the DMA descriptor and in high throughput case it is not acceptable. For me probably a .get_private_area / .put_private_area like API would be desirable where I can give the pointer of the 'metadata' are (and size) to the user. But these can co-exist in my opinion and DMA drivers can opt to implement none, either or both of the callbacks. In couple of days I can update the metadata patches I have atm and send as RFC. Is there anything from your side I should take into account when doing that? - Péter Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki -- 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
