* Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@xxxxxx> [120928 12:36]: > > On 09/28/2012 10:54 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 08:05:38AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > >> * Shilimkar, Santosh <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> [120928 08:02]: > >>> On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:25 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> * Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@xxxxxx> [120928 06:41]: > >>>>> Move plat/dma.h header to platform_data/dma-omap.h as > >>>>> part of the single zImage work. > >>>> > >>>> Hmm there's no platform data in this header, just > >>>> exported things for drivers to use. So it should not > >>>> be placed into platform_data. > >>>> > >>>> Maybe it should be #include <asm/mach/dma-omap.h> for now? > >>>> > >>> I wasn't sure either when the file was placed under platform-data. > >>> I agree for now we can keep it mach layer but than means OMAP1 and > >>> OMAP2+ DMA header and source code needs to be split. That > >>> is not so straight forward. > >> > >> No need for that, the path I'm suggesting is located under > >> arch/arm/include/asm/mach, it's not same as include <mach/dma-omap.h>. > >> > >>> With DMA engine conversion hopefully, we might get rid of the > >>> header eventually, but for now not sure whether we should > >>> go ahead and follow the splitting part. > >>> > >>> Thoughts ? > >> > >> No need for splitting anything :) > >> > >> The other possible location would be just include <linux/dma-omap.h>, > >> but as we all know that will be going away, <asm/mach/dma-omap.h> > >> is probably better. > > > > No, not asm/mach/anything, please. Let's try to get headers into the > > right place second time around. > > > > This header appears to contain: > > > > 1. definitions for DMA signals, used by drivers. > > > > This can be eliminated by using DT, platform data, or IORESOURCE_DMA > > (that's in preference order) which then means that these definitions > > can live in a header file in arch/arm/mach-omap*/ if at all. > > > > 2. data definitions and structures used by drivers using the legacy OMAP > > DMA API. > > > > So, it doesn't contain platform data (as said above). It's not an > > API definition between core ARM code and ARM platform code, so that > > rules out arch/arm/include/asm/mach. Obviously arch/arm/include/asm > > is out of the question too. > > > > I don't think we have a clear cut place for this to live - and lets > > be clear that this file will eventually be going away _anyway_ when > > OMAP is converted 100% to DMA engine. > > > > So, where to put the file? At the moment, I don't know, it doesn't > > seem to have an obvious home other than where it currently is, which > > then gets in the way of the single kernel work. > > I am having the same problem with the OMAP dmtimer platform driver that > the legacy DMA driver has. It is slightly worse as currently it is pure > custom platform driver. Obviously long-term it would be best to create a > generic timer driver in drivers/timer/ that other devices and > architectures could use but we are a long way from that. > > I know that this is ugly and has probably already been shot-down, but as > a short-term fix, has creating arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat-omap been > NAK'ed for such problematic drivers? Sounds like that's the way to go then. What we did not want to do is just move all the files blindly there, but for these files that seems like the way to go until they are just regular device drivers. Regards, Tony -- 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
