On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 14:08:35 -0700 "Dan Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 5:26 AM, Haavard Skinnemoen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [..] > > Right. I'll add a "unsigned int engine_type" field so that engine > > drivers can go ahead and extend the standard dma_device structure. > > Maybe we should add a "void *platform_data" field to the dma_slave > > struct as well so that platforms can pass arbitrary platform-specific > > information to the DMA controller driver? > > > > I think we can get away with not adding an engine_type field: > 1/ For a given platform there will usually only be one driver active. > For example I have an architecture (IOP) specific dma_copy_to_user > implementation that can safely assume it is talking to the iop-adma > driver since ioat_dma and others are precluded by the Kconfig. > 2/ If there was a situation where two dma drivers were active in a > system you could tell them apart by comparing the function pointers, > i.e. dma_device1->device_prep_dma_memcpy != > dma_device2->device_prep_dma_memcpy. What would you be comparing them against? Perhaps you could pass a struct device * from the platform code, which can be compared against "dev" in struct dma_device? Or you could check dma_device->dev->name perhaps. In any case, I agree we probably don't need the engine_type field. Haavard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
