On Fri, 2012-07-06 at 13:36 +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > On Mon, 25 Jun 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > [snip] > > > The channel data in the device tree is still in a format > > that is specific to that dmaengine driver and interpreted > > by it. Using the regular dma_filter_fn prototype is not > > necessary, but it would be convenient because the dmaengine > > code already knows how to deal with it. If we don't use this > > method, how about adding another callback to struct dma_device > > like > > > > bool (*device_match)(struct dma_chan *chan, struct property *req); > > I like this idea, but why don't we extend it to also cover the non-DT > case? I.e., why don't we add the above callback (call it "match" or > "filter" or anything else) to dmaengine operations and inside (the > extended) dma_request_channel(), instead of calling the filter function, > passed as a parameter, we loop over all registered DMAC devices and call > their filter callbacks, And I have told you many times, that dmacs should not know anything about clients. They should be totally agnostic to it. Clients need to request a specific channel, and that is where changes should come for. Not having dmac provide one. -- ~Vinod -- 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
