> -----Original Message----- > From: Russell King - ARM Linux [mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:34 PM > To: Raju, Sundaram > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dan; > Shilimkar, Santosh; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [RFC] dmaengine: Moving TI SDMA driver to dmaengine - design > plan > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 01:52:17PM +0530, Raju, Sundaram wrote: > > I am planning to move TI SDMA driver in OMAP tree > > into the dmaengine framework. > > > > The first immediate issue of concern I noticed is the > > huge number of client drivers that use the existing SDMA driver. > > More than 15 client drivers are using the current SDMA driver. > > > > Moving the SDMA driver along with all of these client drivers at a > > single stretch seems a humungous task. > > I noticed a model in the existing DMA drivers in dmaengine > > framework that will over come this issue. > > It _is_ sane to build a dmaengine driver on top of the existing SoC > private API, then convert the drivers to DMA engine, and then cleanup > the resulting DMA engine driver. Yes, that is what I thought. Thanks. > > What we must make sure though is that the DMA engine slave API (which > isn't well documented) is correctly implemented before drivers are > converted over to use the DMA engine support code, otherwise we may > end up with lots of drivers that require re-fixing several times over. > Very true! Agreed! I will send over the patches for review once I am done with testing. Regards, Sundaram -- 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
