Hello.
On 02-02-2013 1:30, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:49:11PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov 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. But then again, so
wasn't asking for the patch to be removed :-s
Err, patches don't get removed, they get moved to 'discarded'.
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.
Hang on. This is one of the DMA implementations which is closely
coupled with the USB and only the USB? If it is...
I thought this had been discussed _extensively_ before. I thought the
resolution on it was:
1. It would not use the DMA engine API.
2. It would not live in arch/arm.
3. It would be placed nearby the USB driver it's associated with.
Note that all this doesn't apply to CPPI 4.1 controller (as contrasted to
CPPI 3.0 support in MUSB aand EMAC drivers) -- it's shared by design. Just the
implementations that are in tree have it as MUSB's sub-block, 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
