Subject: [PATCH] Documentation: dmaengine: Add a documentation for the dma controller API

From: [email-masked] (Vinod Koul)
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 22:45:52 +0530

On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:57:07AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 10:00:10AM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > On 07/31/2014 07:37 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 06:54:11PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > >>On 07/31/2014 06:13 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >>[...]
> > >>> From what you're saying, and judging from the drivers that already
> > >>>implement it, can't it be moved directly to the framework itself ?
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>What exactly do you mean by moving it directly to the framework? The
> > >>slave_caps API is part of the DMAengine framework.
> > >
> > >Not its implementation, which is defined by each and every driver,
> > >while the behaviour of device_slave_caps is rather generic.
> > >
> > 
> > Do you mean something like adding a dma_slave_caps struct field to
> > the DMA channel that gets initialized when the channel is created
> > and then remove the callback? That makes some sense.
> 
> I was rather thinking into something like:
>   - Splitting device_control into independant functions
I like this part :)

>   - Then, knowing if you support pause/resume/terminate is trivial:
>     either you implement the callback, or you don't
>   - Putting the supported width and direction into fields of struct
>     dma_device, which can eventually be used by the framework to
>     filter out invalid configurations before calling the relevant
>     callbacks
thats is a good idea
>   - That would then be trivial to get from the framework, without
>     calling any callback
Yes please

-- 
~Vinod
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20140801/300b7f67/attachment-0001.sig>