On Tue, 18 Apr 2023 10:08:21 +0200 Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Jonathan, > > Le dimanche 16 avril 2023 à 15:24 +0100, Jonathan Cameron a écrit : > > On Mon, 3 Apr 2023 17:47:52 +0200 > > Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > The buffer-dma code was using two queues, incoming and outgoing, to > > > manage the state of the blocks in use. > > > > > > While this totally works, it adds some complexity to the code, > > > especially since the code only manages 2 blocks. It is much easier > > > to > > > just check each block's state manually, and keep a counter for the > > > next > > > block to dequeue. > > > > > > Since the new DMABUF based API wouldn't use the outgoing queue > > > anyway, > > > getting rid of it now makes the upcoming changes simpler. > > > > > > With this change, the IIO_BLOCK_STATE_DEQUEUED is now useless, and > > > can > > > be removed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Cercueil <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > v2: - Only remove the outgoing queue, and keep the incoming queue, > > > as we > > > want the buffer to start streaming data as soon as it is > > > enabled. > > > - Remove IIO_BLOCK_STATE_DEQUEUED, since it is now functionally > > > the > > > same as IIO_BLOCK_STATE_DONE. > > > > I'm not that familiar with this code, but with my understanding this > > makes > > sense. I think it is independent of the earlier patches and is a > > useful > > change in it's own right. As such, does it make sense to pick this > > up > > ahead of the rest of the series? I'm assuming that discussion on the > > rest will take a while. No great rush as too late for the coming > > merge > > window anyway. > > Actually, you can pick patches 3 to 6 (when all have been acked). They > add write support for buffer-dma implementations; which is a dependency > for the rest of the patchset, but they can live on their own. Remind me of that in the cover letter for v4. Thanks, Jonathan > > Cheers, > -Paul
