On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 02:12:51PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > [ apologies for the resend, gmail defaulted to html ] > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Dan Williams <d...@fb.com> wrote: > >> +Example to perform only MEMCPY and PQ mode tests (0x01 | 0x04 = 0x05): > >> + > >> + % modprobe dmatest > >> + % echo dma0chan0 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/channel > >> + % echo 5 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/cap_mask > >> + % echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/iterations > >> + % echo 1 > /sys/kernel/debug/dmatest/run > > > > > > Hmmm, I should have paid more attention when the debugfs support was > > initially proposed for dmatest. As it is I see duplication and > > configuration parameters getting out of sync with their module parameter > > equivalents versus just having all configuration go through module > > parameters. module_param_call() can be used for the more complex options. > > Debugfs at this point looks like overkill for what amounts to some simple > > configuration variables and a result line. > > > > -- > > Dan > Would you like to have some changes regarding the configuration process for the module parameters of the dmatest?
Any other comments with respect to the patch? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
