Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:05:15 -0700, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not quite "ackable" yet...
Thank you for review!
+#ifdef CONFIG_MACH_TX49XX
+#define TXX9_DMA_MAY_HAVE_64BIT_REGS
+#define TXX9_DMA_HAVE_CCR_LE
+#define TXX9_DMA_HAVE_SMPCHN
+#define TXX9_DMA_HAVE_IRQ_PER_CHAN
+#endif
+
+#ifdef TXX9_DMA_HAVE_SMPCHN
+#define TXX9_DMA_USE_SIMPLE_CHAIN
+#endif
+
There seems to be a lot of ifdef magic in the code based on these
defines. Can we move this magic and some of the pure definitions to
drivers/dma/txx9dmac.h? (See the "#ifdefs are ugly" section of
Documentation/SubmittingPatches)
OK, I will try to clean them up. But since I don't want to export
internal implementation details, some of the magics will be left in
txx9dmac.c, perhaps.
You only need to hide txx9dmac magic if the header was in
include/linux/, but since it will be in drivers/dma/ you can assume it
is private.
}
Is there a reason to keep f'irst' off of the tx_list? It seems like
you could simplify this logic and get rid of the scary looking
list_splice followed by list_add in txx9dmac_desc_put. It also seems
odd that the descriptors on tx_list are not reachable from the
dc->queue list after a submit... but maybe I am missing a subtle
detail?
Well, I'm not sure what do you mean...
The completion callback handler of the first descriptor should be
called _after_ the completion of the _last_ child of the descriptor.
Also I use desc_node for both dc->queue, dc->active_list and
txd.tx_list. So if I putted all children to dc->queue or
dc->active_list, txx9dmac_descriptor_complete() (or its caller) will
be more complex.
Or do you mean adding another list_head to maintain txd.tx_list? Or
something another at all?
The piece I was missing was that it would make
txx9dmac_descriptor_complete() more complex. So, I am fine with the
leaving the current implementation.
Regards,
Dan
