On Tuesday 05 February 2013, Tony Lindgren wrote: > * Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> [130204 07:46]: > > > > Current DMA abstraction is quite poor, for example there's no way to > > compile support for multiple DMA engines. Code also makes certain, IMO > > unnecessary, assumptions about the underlying DMA engine (abstraction is > > poor, as said above but it we could follow MUSB's programming guide when > > it comes to programming DMA transfers). > > > > Considering all of the above, it's far better to use DMA engine and get > > rid of all the mess. > > How about just disable MUSB DMA support if ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM for now? > That way MUSB can be fixed up first to support ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM > using PIO while sorting out the DMA related issues. Sounds ok to me. Someone still needs to do the work to make the non-DMA variants of MUSB coexist in one kernel, but as we discussed erlier, that should be much simpler. Arnd -- 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
