On Tuesday 05 February 2013, Padma Venkat wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Monday 04 February 2013, Padmavathi Venna wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c
> >> index 71d58dd..ec0d731 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c
> >> @@ -23,23 +23,15 @@ static unsigned samsung_dmadev_request(enum dma_ch dma_ch,
> >> struct device *dev, char *ch_name)
> >> {
> >> dma_cap_mask_t mask;
> >> - void *filter_param;
> >>
> >> dma_cap_zero(mask);
> >> dma_cap_set(param->cap, mask);
> >>
> >> - /*
> >> - * If a dma channel property of a device node from device tree is
> >> - * specified, use that as the fliter parameter.
> >> - */
> >> - filter_param = (dma_ch == DMACH_DT_PROP) ?
> >> - (void *)param->dt_dmach_prop : (void *)dma_ch;
> >> -
> >> if (dev->of_node)
> >> return (unsigned)dma_request_slave_channel(dev, ch_name);
> >> else
> >> return (unsigned)dma_request_channel(mask, pl330_filter,
> >> - filter_param);
> >> + (void *)dma_ch);
> >> }
> >
> > This still looks wrong to me, because the pl330_filter function now tkes
> > a struct dma_pl330_filter_args pointer argument, not dma_ch name.
>
> Below is my understanding about generic dma and our discussion on
> previous versions of my patches.
>
> I can’t pass single dma channel number(may be not dma_ch name in your
> comment above) as void* argument to pl330_filter. Because I also need
> to compare against the dma controller device node, as my requested
> channel can belong to any of the available dma controller on SoC. So
> I either need to pass pointer to dma_spec as void* argument which
> holds the dma controller node and required channel number or I can
> pass pointer to dma_pl330_filter_args as per your dw_dmac patches.
Right.
> If I pass pointer to dma_spec I can have a check like below in my
> filter function
> return ((chan->private == dma_spec->np) && (chan->chan_id == dma_spec->args[0]))
>
> Or if I pass dma_pl330_filter_args I can have a check like below.
> return ((chan->device == &fargs->pdmac->ddma) && (chan->chan_id ==
> fargs->chan_id));
>
> I modified the pl330_filter function based on your dw_dmac patches.
> Indeed I don’t need to pass pointer to pdmac object as 3rd arg in
> of_dma_controller_register . Even I pass NULL here works for me.
> Can I pass NULL here as the third argument in of_dma_controller_register?
These are all not the issues I am referring to in my comment above.
I think it works either way, even if you pass NULL to
of_dma_controller_register, although using it for the pdmac object
seems cleaner to me.
> Please clarify me which is best way of doing this and correct me if my
> understanding is wrong.
My point was that in the samsung_dmadev_request quoted above, you
refer to the same pl330_filter filter function, but the argument there
is a pointer to 'enum dma_ch', which is not compatible with any of
the methods you list, neither the dma_pl330_filter_args nor the
raw property.
Also, if you change the calling conventions for the pl330_filter
function, you should change both the caller and the function in the
same patch.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
