On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:22:12AM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > On 2017-11-10 17:24, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > FYI, the gpio pin for onenand should not be in gpio mode. It should > > be used as external dma request line to automatically trigger new > > transfers like we do for tusb6010 dma. But of course it's possible > > that onenand has other issues too preventing the dma usage. > > My conversion to DMAengine is drop in replacement of the existing > implementation: memcpy w/o hardware synchronization event. > > But I think it should be possible to use HW sync (slave DMA) with the > src/dst_port_window in a similar way we do with the tusb6010. How do you want to synchronize it from OneNAND side? > But that can be done in a followup series, but what to do in case of old > DT where the dmas/dma-names properties are no there? These will not work anyway as they do not have compatible property. Also note, that DMA is currently not used, yet nobody complained. > Hmm, extending the dma_slave_map in mach-omap1/2/dma.c might work just fine. > > Having said that, there might have been a reason why the original > implementation was not using DMA request to trigger the memcpy... The > legacy omap-dma API would have allowed that as you kind of open code > things with much flexibility. That's mainly problem of OneNAND driver itself, not oma-dma. But do we really want to invest more time to this obsolete technology? Of course, I would love to see my 10+ years old boards running faster, but it seems unrealistic to me to get enough manpower to finish this task. ladis -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
