On Thu, 2018-10-18 at 15:25 +0530, Vinod wrote: > > > It's not a dmaengine driver. It's a serial UART driver that happens to > > use a dedicated DMA engine. > > Then I see no reason for it to use dmaengine APIs. The framework allows > people to share a controller for many clients, but if you have dedicated > one then you may use it directly Well... the engine is shared by a few UARTs, they have dedicated rings but there's a common set of regs for interrupt handling etc. That said, I still think it could be contained within a UART driver, there's little benefit in adding the framework overhead, esp since these are really weak cores, any overhead will be felt. Ben. > > It's unclear whether it should be split into two drivers, or just have > > the serial driver directly use the dma engine since that engine is > > dedicated in HW to only work on those UARTs and nothing else... > > > > Cheers, > > Ben. > > > > > > > While doing resubmission please take some time to understand subsystem > > > tags to use. (hint git log <subsystem> will tell you) > > > > > > Also series has [[PATCH] 8/9] whereas it should be [PATCH 8/9] please > > > let git generate that for you (hint git format-patch start..end does a > > > good job) > > > > > > > @@ -0,0 +1,1594 @@ > > > > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > > +/* > > > > + * drivers/tty/serial/8250/8250_aspeed_uart_dma.c > > > > + * 1. 2018/07/01 Shivah Shankar created > > > > + * 2. 2018/08/25 sudheer.veliseti<open.sudheer@xxxxxxxxx> modified > > > > > > we dont use this log in kernel. I do not see s-o-b by Shivah, that > > > should be added. I think he should be author and you need to list > > > changes you did.. > > > > >
