On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:41:12AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 11:52:42AM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 10:01:23PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > [...] > > > > > > I'm afraid that this will not work for all cases (unless I miss something). As > > > > Zhi Li pointed out, there are places where only chip pointer will be passed and > > > > we'd need to extract the private data (dw_edma) from it. > > > > > > > > Tbh I also considered your idea but because of the above mentioned issue and > > > > also referring to other implementations like gpiochip, I settled with Frank's > > > > idea of copying the fields. > > > > > > What places are these? I see the only obstacle is the dw_edma_remove() > > > method. But it's easily fixable. > > > > Yeah, right. I overlooked that part. > > > > > Except that, everything else is more > > > or less straightforward (just a few methods need to have prototypes > > > converted to accepting dw_edma instead dw_edma_chip). > > > > > > In order to make the code design more coherent, we need to split up > > > private data and device/platform info. As I see it dw_edma_chip is > > > nothing but a chip info data. The eDMA driver is supposed to mainly > > > use and pass it's private data, not the platform info. It will greatly > > > improve the code readability and maintainability. Such approach will > > > also prevent a temptation of adding new private data fields into the > > > dw_edma_chip structure since reaching the pointer to dw_edma will be > > > much easier that getting the dw_edma_chip data. In this case > > > dw_edma_chip will be something like i2c_board_info in i2c. > > > > > > Ideally dw_edma_chip could be a temporarily defined device info, which > > > memory after the dw_edma_probe() method invocation could be freed. But > > > in order to implement that we'd need a bit more modifications > > > introduced. > > > > > > > > While at it, we should also consider adding an ops structure for passing the > > callbacks from controller drivers. Currently the eDMA driver has the callbacks > > defined in v0-core.c but it is used directly instead of as a callback. > > Are you saying about DBI/Native IOs? If so seems reasonable. Though in > my case it isn't required.) The only problem was a dword-aligned access, > which has been created in the DW eDMA driver by default. > It is not causing any problem but it doesn't look correct to me. Btw, do you have a patch for DWORD access? If so, please share. We are also facing the problem and like to see how to are handling it. Thanks, Mani > -Sergey > > > > > This should anyway needs to be fixed when another version of the IP get's added. > > > > Thanks, > > Mani
