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

[Vinod Koul]

On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 05:36 -0700, Bounine, Alexandre wrote:
> > I think we all agree that this fits the dma_slave case :)
> > 
> > As for changing in dmaengine to u64, if we are thinking this as
> slave
> > usage, then ideally we should not make assumption of the address
> type
> > of
> > peripheral so we should only move the dma_slave_config address
> fields
> > to
> > u64, if that helps in RIO case. Moving other usages would be insane.
> > 
> > At this point we have two proposals
> > a) to make RIO exceptional case and add RIO specific stuff.
> > b) make dmaengine transparent and add additional argument
> > in .device_prep_slave_sg() callback which is subsystem dependent.
> > Current dmacs and those who don't need it will ignore it.
> > 
> > ATM, I am leaning towards the latter, for the main reason to keep
> > dmaengine away from subsystem details.
> > 
> Both proposals will work for RapidIO but second option looks more
> universal and may be used by another subsystem in the future.
> My vote goes to the option b). 
Thanks for the vote :D

I would really like to hear from Dan, Jassi and Russell as well.


-- 
~Vinod

--
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/