Re: [PATCHv4] DMAEngine: Define interleaved transfer request api
From: Vinod Koul
Date: Fri Oct 07 2011 - 10:26:53 EST
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 16:57 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> 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.
For interleaved isn't that what you are trying?
> > 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.
If we can make API cleaner and well defined that way then Yes :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/