On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 11:21 +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: > On 12/09/2013 10:34 AM, Sergei Ianovich wrote: > > Nice to have Daniel in this conversation. Your patch series is a big and > > important work. However, I am not sure I will ever land as is exactly > > for this reason. > > Well, I wouldn't be so certain about that statement. As I wrote in the > cover letter, most of the work is actually done, and I successfully > tested the new DMA support with a some of the drivers I ported. Others > were ported blindly, and in case of no reaction, I'd dare to merge them > and wait for people to report back in case of trouble. If breaking things is an option, I am definitely wrong. I assumed the opposite. > > My proposal in to actually add new drivers for each platform device with > > DMA and mark new ones EXPERIMENTAL. > > That would cause tree-wide cross-dependencies between drivers, because > the two DMA controllers can't be used at the same time, and the PXA > specific API will be unavailable when the mmp-dma driver is selected. My > patch series (and the DMA controller framework for that matter) aims for > the opposite - the unification of APIs and drivers. Not sure I got this point. My proposal is to keep the existing DMA intact until we are ready to remove it. I understand this approach requires considerably more work inside DMA to allow both driver to coexist than wholesale replacement. I still think big change is risky. -- 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
