Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] dmaengine: DW DMAC: split pdata to hardware properties

[Andy Shevchenko]

On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 12:22 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:55 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Â
> > > + * @only_quirks_used: Only read quirks (like "is_private" or
> > > "is_memcpy") from
> > > + *	platform data structure. Read other parameters from
> > > device
> > > tree
> > > + *	node (if exists) or from hardware autoconfig registers.
> > 
> > Can you somehow be more clear that all listed quirks will be copied
> > from
> > platform data.
> 
> SeeÂcomment below.
> 
> > Â
> > > Â
> > > ÂÂÂ* @is_nollp: The device channels does not support multi block
> > > transfers.
> > > ÂÂÂ* @chan_allocation_order: Allocate channels starting from 0 or
> > > 7
> > > ÂÂÂ* @chan_priority: Set channel priority increasing from 0 to 7
> > > or
> > > 7
> > > to 0.
> > > @@ -52,6 +55,7 @@ struct dw_dma_platform_data {
> > > ÂÂ	unsigned int	nr_channels;
> > > ÂÂ	bool		is_private;
> > > ÂÂ	bool		is_memcpy;
> > > Â
> > > +	bool		only_quirks_used;
> > 
> > Perhaps add if at the end of quirk list and name justÂ
> > Â
> > > Â
> > > ÂÂ	bool		is_nollp;
> > 
> > ...here
> > Â
> > bool use_quirks;

What do think about shorten name?

> 
> I don't treat "is_nollp" as quirks like "is_private" or "is_memcpy".
> It is like general pdata field: we can easilyÂread it from autoconfig
> registers (and we don't have any problem with that) in case of
> pdata/device-tree absence (as opposed to quirks like "is_private" or
> "is_memcpy")
> 
> So, in PATCH v3 series "is_nollp" used as regular pdata field.

I still would consider is_nollp as a quirk since nothing prevents to
override the hardware value (see Intel Quark case).

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy