On 04/16/2014 07:05 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On 04/16/2014 07:59 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> [..]
>> If the dma-priority is missing we should assume lowest priority (0).
>> The highest priority depends on the platform. For eDMA3 in AM335x it is
>> three
>> level. For designware
On 04/16/2014 07:05 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
On 04/16/2014 07:59 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
[..]
If the dma-priority is missing we should assume lowest priority (0).
The highest priority depends on the platform. For eDMA3 in AM335x it is
three
level. For designware controller you might have
On 04/16/2014 07:59 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
[..]
> If the dma-priority is missing we should assume lowest priority (0).
> The highest priority depends on the platform. For eDMA3 in AM335x it is
> three
> level. For designware controller you might have the range 0-8 as valid.
On 04/14/2014 05:32 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> Yes, you can. But as soon as you have other devices using the same priority
>> (with eDMA3 at least) and asks for a 'long' transfer it can ruin the audio.
>> During audio playback/capture you execute a long MMC read for example can
>> introduce a
On 04/14/2014 05:32 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
Yes, you can. But as soon as you have other devices using the same priority
(with eDMA3 at least) and asks for a 'long' transfer it can ruin the audio.
During audio playback/capture you execute a long MMC read for example can
introduce a glitch.
On 04/16/2014 07:59 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
[..]
If the dma-priority is missing we should assume lowest priority (0).
The highest priority depends on the platform. For eDMA3 in AM335x it is
three
level. For designware controller you might have the range 0-8 as valid.
The question is how
On Monday 14 April 2014 06:11 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 04/14/2014 03:12 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Monday 14 April 2014 05:26 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>> Hi Vinod,
>>>
>>> On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we
On 04/14/2014 03:12 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Monday 14 April 2014 05:26 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> Hi Vinod,
>>
>> On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide that
>>> (lets
>>> say) 0-7, then any controller should map
On Monday 14 April 2014 05:26 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide that
>> (lets
>> say) 0-7, then any controller should map 0 to lowest and 7 to highest.
>>
>> For your case
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide that
> (lets
> say) 0-7, then any controller should map 0 to lowest and 7 to highest.
>
> For your case you can do this and then intermediate numbers would be medium
>
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide that
(lets
say) 0-7, then any controller should map 0 to lowest and 7 to highest.
For your case you can do this and then intermediate numbers would be medium
On Monday 14 April 2014 05:26 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide that
(lets
say) 0-7, then any controller should map 0 to lowest and 7 to highest.
For your case you can do
On 04/14/2014 03:12 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Monday 14 April 2014 05:26 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide that
(lets
say) 0-7, then any controller should map 0 to lowest and
On Monday 14 April 2014 06:11 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/14/2014 03:12 PM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Monday 14 April 2014 05:26 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 03:46 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I think the number shouldn't be viewed in absolute terms. If we decide
that (lets
On 04/11/2014 04:42 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at
12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:23:54PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 02:31 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> >> I would say that it is channel based config. I don't see the reason why
> >> would
> >> one mix different priorities on a configured channel between descriptors.
> >>
> >>> If not
On 04/11/2014 02:31 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> I would say that it is channel based config. I don't see the reason why would
>> one mix different priorities on a configured channel between descriptors.
>>
>>> If not then we can add this in dma_slave_config ?
>>
>> So adding to the struct for
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 02:32:28PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On 04/11/2014 12:42 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> >>> On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 12:42 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April
On Friday 11 April 2014 03:12 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> > On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Use the
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>>> Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
>>> priority channels, like audio.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
>> priority channels, like audio.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi
>
> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori
>
>> ---
>>
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
> priority channels, like audio.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi
Acked-by: Sekhar Nori
> ---
> arch/arm/common/edma.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like audio.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
Acked-by: Sekhar Nori nsek...@ti.com
---
arch/arm/common/edma.c | 3 ++-
1
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like audio.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
Acked-by: Sekhar Nori nsek...@ti.com
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like audio.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for
On Friday 11 April 2014 03:12 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM,
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 12:42 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM,
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 02:32:28PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Hi Vinod,
On 04/11/2014 12:42 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On
On 04/11/2014 02:31 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I would say that it is channel based config. I don't see the reason why would
one mix different priorities on a configured channel between descriptors.
If not then we can add this in dma_slave_config ?
So adding to the struct for example:
bool
On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 03:23:54PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 02:31 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
I would say that it is channel based config. I don't see the reason why
would
one mix different priorities on a configured channel between descriptors.
If not then we can add
On 04/11/2014 04:42 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at
12:38:00PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:56 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Friday 11 April 2014 02:20 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
On 04/11/2014 11:17 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
On Tuesday 01 April 2014 06:36 PM, Peter
On 04/01/2014 08:06 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
> priority channels, like audio.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi
This looks good, though another way to do it would be to leave default
to Queue 0. Put audio in Queue 1, and
On 04/01/2014 08:06 AM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like audio.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
This looks good, though another way to do it would be to leave default
to Queue 0. Put audio
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like audio.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi
---
arch/arm/common/edma.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
index
Use the EVENTQ_1 for default and leave the EVENTQ_0 to be used by high
priority channels, like audio.
Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi peter.ujfal...@ti.com
---
arch/arm/common/edma.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c
40 matches
Mail list logo
