Hi Vinod,
On 2015/10/5 23:37, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:48:59AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
>> Add dmaengine_get_quirks API for peripheral devices to query
>> quirks if they need it to make special workaround due to broken
>> dma controller design.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn.lin at rock-chips.com>
>> ---
>>
>> Changes in v5: None
>> Changes in v4: None
>> Changes in v3: None
>> Changes in v2: None
>> Changes in v1: None
>>
>> include/linux/dmaengine.h | 9 +++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
>> index e2f5eb4..5174ca4 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
>> @@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ struct dma_device {
>>
>> int (*device_config)(struct dma_chan *chan,
>> struct dma_slave_config *config);
>> + int (*device_get_quirks)(struct dma_chan *chan);
>
> And why do we want to expose this to users? THis doesnt seem right!
>
Basically I agree not to expose dma's quirk to slave controllers...But,
the fact I mentioned on cover letter explain the reasons why I have to
let slave controllers know that they are working with a broken dma. It's
a dilemma that if we don't want that to be exposed(let slave
controllers' driver get the info via a API), we have to add broken quirk
for all of them ,here and there, which seems to be a disaster:(
I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions at your
earliest convenience. :)
> A quirk may exists but should be handled inside the controller driver and do
> appropriate action. You don't tell users or expect them to handle these
>
--
Best Regards
Shawn Lin
