Hi Vinod,
On 2015/10/5 23:37, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 07:48:59AM +0800, Shawn Lin wrote:
Add dmaengine_get_quirks API for peripheral devices to query
quirks if they need it to make special workaround due to broken
dma controller design.
Signed-off-by: Shawn Lin <shawn....@rock-chips.com>
---
Changes in v5: None
Changes in v4: None
Changes in v3: None
Changes in v2: None
Changes in v1: None
include/linux/dmaengine.h | 9 +++++++++
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
index e2f5eb4..5174ca4 100644
--- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h
+++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
@@ -704,6 +704,7 @@ struct dma_device {
int (*device_config)(struct dma_chan *chan,
struct dma_slave_config *config);
+ int (*device_get_quirks)(struct dma_chan *chan);
And why do we want to expose this to users? THis doesnt seem right!
Basically I agree not to expose dma's quirk to slave controllers...But,
the fact I mentioned on cover letter explain the reasons why I have to
let slave controllers know that they are working with a broken dma. It's
a dilemma that if we don't want that to be exposed(let slave
controllers' driver get the info via a API), we have to add broken quirk
for all of them ,here and there, which seems to be a disaster:(
I would appreciate it if you could give me some suggestions at your
earliest convenience. :)
A quirk may exists but should be handled inside the controller driver and do
appropriate action. You don't tell users or expect them to handle these
--
Best Regards
Shawn Lin
--
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/
