Hello.
On 02-02-2013 0:56, Felipe Balbi wrote:
good point, do you wanna send some patches ?
I have already sent them countless times and even stuck CPPI 4.1 support (in
arch/arm/common/cppi41.c) in Russell's patch system. TI requested to remove the
patch. :-(
sticking into arch/arm/common/ wasn't a nice move.
Like with EDMA we have nothing else to do with CPPI 4.1 being shared by
DaVinci-like and OMAP-like SOCs. Thank TI for creatring this mess. And
actually even that is not a good place since I think I know of a MIPS SoC
having CPPI 4.1 as well, just out of tree.
> But then again, so
> wasn't asking for the patch to be removed :-s
Unfortunately, Russell has done it -- all that was discuseed without me in
the loop even. :-/
I guess to make the MUSB side simpler we would need musb-dma-engine glue
to map dmaengine to the private MUSB API. Then we would have some
starting point to also move inventra (and anybody else) to dmaengine
API.
Why? Inventra is a dedicated device's private DMA controller, why make
universal DMA driver for it?
because it doesn't make sense to support multiple DMA APIs. We can check
from MUSB's registers if it was configured with Inventra DMA support and
based on that we can register MUSB's own DMA Engine to dmaengine API.
I still disagree. IMO drivers/dma/ is for standalone DMA engines. Else we
could stick every bus mastering device's DMA engines there. CPPI 4.1 is in
design standlone DMA engine, despite all in-tree implementations having it as
subblock of MUSB and serving only MUSB.
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
