On Friday 24 April 2009, Sudhakar Rajashekhara wrote:
> +struct edma {
> + /* how many dma resources of each type */
> + unsigned num_channels;
> + unsigned num_region;
> + unsigned num_slots;
> + unsigned num_tc;
> + unsigned num_cc;
> +
> + /* list of channels with no even trigger; terminated by "-1" */
> + const s8 *noevent;
> +
> + /* The edma_inuse bit for each PaRAM slot is clear unless the
> + * channel is in use ... by ARM or DSP, for QDMA, or whatever.
> + */
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(edma_inuse, EDMA_MAX_PARAMENTRY);
> +
> + /* The edma_noevent bit for each channel is clear unless
> + * it doesn't trigger DMA events on this platform. It uses a
> + * bit of SOC-specific initialization code.
> + */
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(edma_noevent, EDMA_MAX_DMACH);
> +
> + unsigned irq_start[EDMA_MAX_CC];
> + unsigned irq_end[EDMA_MAX_CC];
I don't quite see why those are arras... surely they should
be single values? And I'd have to look in more detail, to
answer this, but *why* have irq_end when we know that it's
going to be "irq_start + num_channels"?
> +};
> +
> +struct edma edma_info[EDMA_MAX_CC];
Normally I'd expect that should be an array of *pointers* that
get allocated in probe(), but that may not be a big deal if
it's just the difference between one and two such structs.
How much memory will that waste?
> static struct dma_interrupt_data {
> void (*callback)(unsigned channel, unsigned short ch_status, void
> *data);
> void *data;
> } intr_data[EDMA_MAX_DMACH];
And I recall pointing out before that this is incorrect.
EDMA_MAX_DMACH will be 64 (per channel controller), so
if there are two such controllers ... that's not enough.
Either that array should be part of the "struct edma" or
it should be size "EDMA_MAX_DMACH * EDMA_MAX_CC". I'd
tend to go for the former.
_______________________________________________
Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
