On 05/16/2012 10:44 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 05/16/2012 07:15 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
>> Hi Jassi,
>>
>> On 05/16/2012 07:37 AM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>> Hi Jon,
>>>
>>> On 16 May 2012 06:41, Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 05/04/2012 02:01 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> + i2c1: i2c@1 {
>>>>> + ...
>>>>> + dma = <&sdma 2 1 &sdma 3 2>;
>>>>> + ...
>>>>> + };
>>>>>>
>>>>> I see this requires a client driver to specify a particular req_line on a
>>>>> particular dma controller. I am not sure if this is most optimal.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, no. The phandle in the DT specifies the DMA controller to use.
>>>> Then the client simply asks for a channel with a particular property,
>>>> for example, DMA_MEM_TO_DEV (ie. TX) and the channel information is return.
>>>>
>>> See below.
>>>
>>>>> I think such client->req_line map should be provided to the dmac controller
>>>>> driver via its dt node in some format. The dmac driver could then populate
>>>>> a dma_chan, or similar, only for that req_line and not for the unused one
>>>>> which otherwise could also have served the same client.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ideally the I2C driver should simply ask, say, a channel for TX and another
>>>>> for RX, everything else should already be setup via dmac's dt nodes.
>>>>
>>>> Yes that is the intention here.
>>>>
>>> But the client is required to specify the dmac that would serve it.
>>> Which is more
>>> than simply asking for "some suitable channel".
>>
>> No this is not the case with what I propose. The client knows nothing
>> about the dmac.
>
> I think you're both talking about slightly different things.
>
> Jon: You're talking about the driver code.
> Jassi: You're talking about the device tree.
Yes you are right. However, I do see Jassi's point now.
> By including a property in the DMA client's DT node that describes which
> DMA controller services it, the device (the DT node) "knows" about the
> DMA controllers.
>
> By moving the information to the DMA controller and specifying which DMA
> clients can be serviced, that DMA client DT node no longer contains any
> information about the DMA controller that serves it, and hence it's not
> bound to a single controller, and hence can select from 1 of n
> controllers at run-time if applicable given the HW.
Yes I see the need for this. My concern (and I just sent another
follow-up) was how readable is the device-tree for a human by using such
a token. Is it intuitive enough for a human to understand the options
available.
Cheers
Jon
--
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
