Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/4] dt-bindings: dmaengine: bam_dma: Add "powered remotely" mode

From: Stephan Gerhold <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 12:29:45 +0200

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47:06AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 11-10-21, 16:17, Stephan Gerhold wrote:
> > In some configurations, the BAM DMA controller is set up by a remote
> > processor and the local processor can simply start making use of it
> > without setting up the BAM. This is already supported using the
> > "qcom,controlled-remotely" property.
> > 
> > However, for some reason another possible configuration is that the
> > remote processor is responsible for powering up the BAM, but we are
> > still responsible for initializing it (e.g. resetting it etc). Add
> > a "qcom,powered-remotely" property to describe that configuration.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <[email-masked]>
> > ---
> > Changes since RFC:
> >   - Rename qcom,remote-power-collapse -> qcom,powered-remotely
> >     for consistency with "qcom,controlled-remotely"
> > 
> > NOTE: This is *not* a compile-time requirement for the BAM-DMUX driver
> >       so this could also go through the dmaengine tree.
> 
> Can we split that this to dmaengine & net series if there is not
> dependency on the two... I think I skipped rev1 when I saw net-next
> 

Sure, I have now sent a v3 for the dmaengine changes without the
BAM-DMUX driver.

The original reason for having them in one series was to better see how
the dmaengine changes are used together with the design of the BAM-DMUX
driver. I discussed some alternative approaches in the original RFC
which only made sense in combination with the BAM-DMUX driver:
https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/[email-masked]/

Thanks!
Stephan