On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 12:22 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:55 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
?
> > > + * @only_quirks_used: Only read quirks (like "is_private" or
> > > "is_memcpy") from
> > > + * platform data structure. Read other parameters from
> > > device
> > > tree
> > > + * node (if exists) or from hardware autoconfig registers.
> >
> > Can you somehow be more clear that all listed quirks will be copied
> > from
> > platform data.
>
> See?comment below.
>
> > ?
> > > ?
> > > ???* @is_nollp: The device channels does not support multi block
> > > transfers.
> > > ???* @chan_allocation_order: Allocate channels starting from 0 or
> > > 7
> > > ???* @chan_priority: Set channel priority increasing from 0 to 7
> > > or
> > > 7
> > > to 0.
> > > @@ -52,6 +55,7 @@ struct dw_dma_platform_data {
> > > ?? unsigned int nr_channels;
> > > ?? bool is_private;
> > > ?? bool is_memcpy;
> > > ?
> > > + bool only_quirks_used;
> >
> > Perhaps add if at the end of quirk list and name just?
> > ?
> > > ?
> > > ?? bool is_nollp;
> >
> > ...here
> > ?
> > bool use_quirks;
What do think about shorten name?
>
> I don't treat "is_nollp" as quirks like "is_private" or "is_memcpy".
> It is like general pdata field: we can easily?read it from autoconfig
> registers (and we don't have any problem with that) in case of
> pdata/device-tree absence (as opposed to quirks like "is_private" or
> "is_memcpy")
>
> So, in PATCH v3 series "is_nollp" used as regular pdata field.
I still would consider is_nollp as a quirk since nothing prevents to
override the hardware value (see Intel Quark case).
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
