On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 11/20/2015 02:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Friday 20 November 2015 12:25:06 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 11/19/2015 01:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>> Another idea wou
On Friday 20 November 2015 14:52:03 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>
> >> For legacy the filter function is pretty much needed to handle the
> >> differences
> >> between the platforms as not all of them does the filtering in a same way.
> >> So
> >> the first type of map would be feasible IMHO.
> >
> >
On 11/20/2015 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> That way the vast majority of drivers can use one of the two nice interfaces
>>> and the rest can be converted to use __dma_request_chan().
>>>
>>> On a related topic, we had in the past considered providing a way for
>>> platform code to register a
On 11/20/2015 02:24 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Friday 20 November 2015 12:25:06 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>> On 11/19/2015 01:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>> Another idea would be to remove the filter function from struct dma_chan_map
>
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 20 November 2015 12:25:06 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 11/19/2015 01:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Another idea would be to remove the filter function from struct dma_chan_map
> and pass the map through platform data
Why not unifi
On Friday 20 November 2015 12:25:06 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 01:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> dma_request_channel(mask); /* memcpy. etc, non slave mostly */
> >>
> >> Not sure how to name this as reusing existing (good, descriptive) function
> >> names would mean changes all over th
On 11/19/2015 01:25 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> If we have two main APIs, one to request slave channels and one to get any
>> channel with given capability
>> dma_request_slave_channel(NULL, NULL, &mask, fn, fn_param); /* Legacy slave
>> */
>> dma_request_slave_channel(dev, name, NULL, NULL, NULL)
On Thursday 19 November 2015 12:34:22 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>
> I think we can go with a single API, but I don't really like that:
> dma_request_channel(dev, name, *mask, fn, fn_param);
>
> This would cover all current uses being legacy, DT/ACPI, compat, etc:
> dma_request_channel(NULL, NULL, &ma
On 11/18/2015 05:46 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> bringing this old thread back to life as I just started to work on this.
>
> What I remember we need to convert drivers to use new API meanwhile it
> is good to keep old one
On 11/18/2015 05:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:41:35 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 11/18/2015 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality matters, like
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 04:51:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:43:04 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >
> > > I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a
> > > plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY.
> >
> > Other way around.
> >
>
> Ok, I se
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:43:04 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> >
>> > I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a
>> > plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY.
>>
>> Other way around.
>>
>
> Ok, I see. In that case I
On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:43:04 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> >
> > I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a
> > plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY.
>
> Other way around.
>
Ok, I see. In that case I guess it also shouldn't call
dmaengine_slave_config(), right? I
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> bringing this old thread back to life as I just started to work on this.
What I remember we need to convert drivers to use new API meanwhile it
is good to keep old one to avoid patch storm which does nothing useful
(IIRC Russe
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:41:35 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 11/18/2015 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> >> 2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality m
On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:41:35 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 11/18/2015 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> 2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality matters, like
> >> memcpy, interleaved, memset, etc.
> >> We
On 11/18/2015 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> 2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality matters, like
>> memcpy, interleaved, memset, etc.
>> We could have a simple:
>> dma_request_channel(mask);
>>
>> But looking at
On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> 2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality matters, like
> memcpy, interleaved, memset, etc.
> We could have a simple:
> dma_request_channel(mask);
>
> But looking at the drivers using dmaengine legacy dma_request_chan
Hi Vinod,
bringing this old thread back to life as I just started to work on this.
On 06/24/2015 07:24 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> We would end up with the following APIs, all returning with error code on
>> failure:
>> dma_request_slave_channel(dev, name);
>> dma_request_channel_legacy(mask, fn,
On Wednesday 24 June 2015 21:54:01 Vinod Koul wrote:
> > It would be nice to find another name for the
> > dma_request_slave_channel_compat() so with the new name we could have chance
> > to rearrange the parameters: (dev, name, mask, fn, fn_param)
> >
> > We would end up with the following APIs,
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:31:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 06/12/2015 03:58 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > Sorry this slipped thru
>
> I was away for a week anyways ;)
>
> > Thinking about it again, I think we should coverge to two APIs and mark the
> > legacy depracuated and look to convert
On 06/12/2015 03:58 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> Sorry this slipped thru
I was away for a week anyways ;)
> Thinking about it again, I think we should coverge to two APIs and mark the
> legacy depracuated and look to convert folks and phase that out
Currently, w/o this series we have these APIs:
/* t
On Thu, Jun 04, 2015 at 06:58:06PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Vinod,
>
> On 06/02/2015 03:55 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:32:50PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> On 05/29/2015 01:18 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:42:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoev
Vinod,
On 06/02/2015 03:55 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:32:50PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 05/29/2015 01:18 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:42:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 05:32:50PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 05/29/2015 01:18 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:42:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:25:57PM +0300, Peter Ujfalus
On 05/29/2015 01:18 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:42:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:25:57PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
dma_request_slave_channel_compat() 'eats' up the returned
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:42:27AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:25:57PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> dma_request_slave_channel_compat() 'eats' up the returned error codes which
> >> prevents drivers using
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:25:57PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> dma_request_slave_channel_compat() 'eats' up the returned error codes which
>> prevents drivers using the compat call to be able to do deferred probing.
>>
>> The new wrapper is
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:25:57PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> dma_request_slave_channel_compat() 'eats' up the returned error codes which
> prevents drivers using the compat call to be able to do deferred probing.
>
> The new wrapper is identical in functionality but it will return with error
dma_request_slave_channel_compat() 'eats' up the returned error codes which
prevents drivers using the compat call to be able to do deferred probing.
The new wrapper is identical in functionality but it will return with error
code in case of failure and will pass the -EPROBE_DEFER to the caller in
30 matches
Mail list logo
