Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api

From: Jassi Brar
Date: Fri Oct 07 2011 - 07:27:07 EST

On 7 October 2011 11:15, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Thru this patch Jassi gave a very good try at merging DMA_SLAVE and
> memcpy, but more we debate this, I am still not convinced about merging
> memcpy and DMA_SLAVE yet.
Nobody is merging memcpy and DMA_SLAVE right away.
The api's primary purpose is to support interleave transfers.
Possibility to merge other prepares into this is a side-effect.

> I would still argue that if we split this on same lines as current
> mechanism, we have clean way to convey all details for both cases.
Do you mean to have separate interleaved transfer apis for Slave
and Mem->Mem ? Please clarify.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at