On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 10:39:09AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 9:13 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven > >> I'm wondering if it isn't better to have the non-DMA platforms define > >> stub (always error) DMA functions instead - it's less error prone and > >> with SPI there's a bunch of drivers which can run perfectly usefully > >> without DMA while optionally supporting DMA. > > The SPI problem will sort itself out once all SPI master drivers have been > > converted to use the SPI DMA core ;-) > BTW, the dmaengine API has stubs, only the low-level dma-mapping API > doesn't. That's why e.g. spi-rspi doesn't need a dependency on HAS_DMA. > So it's indeed a good thing to handle the low-level DMA mapping in the > subsystem's core, as only that part can be optional and depend on HAS_DMA. Yeah, but I'd expect there's other subsystems which will be in a similar boat here and with dmaengine having stubs it seems strange that the mapping API doesn't.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
