2014-09-09 20:09 GMT+04:00 Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>: > On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 07:52:59PM +0400, Matwey V. Kornilov wrote: >> 2014-09-09 19:11 GMT+04:00 Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx>: >> > the proper way would be to move everything to dma_engine. OMAP already >> > has support for DMA engine and both CPPI and Ux500 are already using >> > that. >> >> If so, ux500_dma.c and musb_cppi41.c should be almost identically >> wrapping dmaengine, but they aren't. > > heh, the difference is mostly because ux500 supports scatter-gather > while cppi41 doesn't. That can be handled generically. The other > differences are due to silicon errata, and that should be hidden inside > DMA engine driver itself, not in MUSB. > That is, If I understand correctly, one may start from the other side. Firstly create musb_dmaengine.c using generic dmaengine API (not relying on hardware model) and providing private API and then drop one by one existing DMA implementations from musb. Eventually, only musb_dmaengine.c will be kept suitable for all kinds of drivers. -- With best regards, Matwey V. Kornilov http://blog.matwey.name xmpp://0x2207@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
