On 31-07-19, 10:48, Jon Hunter wrote: > > 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. So one thing not clear to me is why ADMA needs fifo-size, I thought it was to program ADMAIF and if we have client programme the max-burst size to ADMA and fifo-size to ADMAIF we wont need that. Can you please confirm if my assumption is valid? > 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 -- ~Vinod
