On 29/07/2019 07:10, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 23-07-19, 11:24, Sameer Pujar wrote: >> >> On 7/19/2019 10:34 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: >>> On 05-07-19, 11:45, Sameer Pujar wrote: >>>> Hi Vinod, >>>> >>>> What are your final thoughts regarding this? >>> Hi sameer, >>> >>> Sorry for the delay in replying >>> >>> On this, I am inclined to think that dma driver should not be involved. >>> The ADMAIF needs this configuration and we should take the path of >>> dma_router for this piece and add features like this to it >> >> Hi Vinod, >> >> The configuration is needed by both ADMA and ADMAIF. The size is >> configurable >> on ADMAIF side. ADMA needs to know this info and program accordingly. > > Well I would say client decides the settings for both DMA, DMAIF and > sets the peripheral accordingly as well, so client communicates the two > sets of info to two set of drivers That maybe, but I still don't see how the information is passed from the client in the first place. The current problem is that there is no means to pass both a max-burst size and fifo-size to the DMA driver from the client. IMO there needs to be a way to pass vendor specific DMA configuration (if this information is not common) otherwise we just end up in a scenario like there is for the xilinx DMA driver (include/linux/dma/xilinx_dma.h) that has a custom API for passing this information. Cheers Jon -- nvpublic
