Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:36:42 +0200: > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:32:31 +0200 > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 18:22:00 +0200 > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Hi Boris, > > > > > > Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Wed, 29 Apr > > > 2020 18:08:16 +0200: > > > > > > > On Wed, 29 Apr 2020 17:55:32 +0200 > > > > Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > NAND controller drivers can set the NAND_USE_BOUNCE_BUFFER flag to a > > > > > chip 'option' field. With this flag, the core is responsible of > > > > > providing DMA-able buffers. > > > > > > > > > > The current behavior is to not force the use of a bounce buffer when > > > > > the core thinks this is not needed. So in the end the name is a bit > > > > > misleading, because in theory we will always have a DMA buffer but in > > > > > practice it will not always be a bounce buffer. > > > > > > > > > > Rename this flag NAND_USE_DMA_BUFFER to be more accurate. > > > > > > > > I still think this one should be named NAND_CONTROLLER_USES_DMA. > > > > > > Actually I want to rework all the flags and prefix them with > > > NAND_CONTROLLER, that's why I am keeping the NAND_ prefix. I can change > > > the _USE_DMA_BUFFER into _USES_DMA though. > > > > Ack on NAND_USES_DMA. > > But then I wonder if it's really worth renaming this field now if you > plan to rename it again later :-). Hehe, well, it "fixes" the meaning of the flag, later changes will only be "cosmetic" :) Saying we "use a bounce buffer" is not accurate as the code first checks if the buffer is compliant with DMA constraints, and uses a bounce buffer only if it is not. ______________________________________________________ Linux MTD discussion mailing list http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/