On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 2:26 AM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:06 AM, jassi brar <jassisinghbrar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> This discussion is purely about what the current DMA API misses and what >> a generic DMA API should do. So, that the current DMA API fills up those >> gap, if possible. I would love to get started implementing the generic >> DMA API for reference but my priorities are decided by my employer. > > Well, the only significant miss that has been identified so far is > dynamic channel allocation for the device-to-mem case. Everything > else can be done with small tweaks to the existing interface. But > some of this discussion reminds me of Section 2.4 of > Documentaion/SubmittingPatches: > > 4) Don't over-design. > > Don't try to anticipate nebulous future cases which may or may not > be useful: "Make it as simple as you can, and no simpler." There is a fine line between anticipating future requirements and over-designing. We already have Samsung's and STM's SoC sharing a DMAC IP. Esp with PrimeCells, we are soon likely to see SoCs sharing a peripheral IP with possibly different DMACs. Some elements may be ideal-design at the cost of over-design, but not all. Let us not simply brush aside all concerns as over-designing. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
