On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:39:12PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 3/15/2012 9:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
The numbers definitely need to become local to each of the controllers, but
that is the case pretty much automatically using the proposed binding,
because each dma request identifier
On 03/19/2012 03:45 PM, Grant Likely :
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:30:05 +0100, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
On 03/17/2012 10:40 AM, Grant Likely :
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:10 +0100, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:47:51AM +, Grant Likely wrote:
After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names [*-]gpios)
I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names property.
It is easier to use common code with that scheme, and easier to statically
On 03/17/2012 10:40 AM, Grant Likely :
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:10 +0100, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA controllers register a generic
translation function, we
On 03/18/2012 09:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
+static LIST_HEAD(of_dma_list);
+
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head of_dma_controllers;
+ struct device_node *of_node;
+ int of_dma_n_cells;
+ int (*of_dma_xlate)(struct of_phandle_args
On Monday 19 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
This _xlate is nearly useless as a generic API. It solves the problem for
the specific case where the driver is hard-coded to know which DMA engine
to talk to, but since the returned data doesn't provide any context, it
isn't useful if there
On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:30:05 +0100, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
On 03/17/2012 10:40 AM, Grant Likely :
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:10 +0100, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head of_dma_controllers;
+ struct device_node
On Monday 19 March 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:47:51AM +, Grant Likely wrote:
After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names
[*-]gpios)
I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names property.
It is easier to use common
On 03/19/2012 09:01 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2012, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 10:47:51AM +, Grant Likely wrote:
After implementing both schemes (ie. interrupts+interrupt-names
[*-]gpios)
I definitely prefer the fixed property name plus a separate names
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:37:56PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 03/18/2012 09:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
+static LIST_HEAD(of_dma_list);
+
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head of_dma_controllers;
+ struct device_node *of_node;
+
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:06:34PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
mmci
/* in drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c, others in pl330.c, coh901318.c, ... */
bool stedma40_filter(struct dma_chan *chan, void *data)
{
struct stedma40_chan_cfg *info = data;
struct d40_chan
On Monday 19 March 2012, Stephen Warren wrote:
Maybe one can use named properties in a new device node in that case,
like this:
bus {
dma: dma-controller {
#dma-cells = 1;
};
device {
On 3/19/2012 4:20 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:37:56PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 03/18/2012 09:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann :
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
+static LIST_HEAD(of_dma_list);
+
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head
On Monday 19 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Firstly, define what you mean by the DMA parameters. Things like burst
size, register width, register address? That should all be known by the
peripheral driver and not be encoded into DT in any way - and this
information should be
On 03/19/2012 04:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux :
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:06:34PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
mmci
/* in drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c, others in pl330.c, coh901318.c, ... */
bool stedma40_filter(struct dma_chan *chan, void *data)
{
struct
On 03/19/2012 09:45 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 19 March 2012, Stephen Warren wrote:
Maybe one can use named properties in a new device node in that case,
like this:
bus {
dma: dma-controller {
#dma-cells = 1;
};
Hi Nico,
On 3/19/2012 5:31 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
On 03/19/2012 04:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux :
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 02:06:34PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
mmci
/* in drivers/dma/ste_dma40.c, others in pl330.c, coh901318.c, ... */
bool stedma40_filter(struct dma_chan
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
Secondly, there are platforms (Samsung) where peripherals are connected
to more than one DMA controller, and either DMA controller can be used -
I'm told by Jassi that there's reasons why you'd want to select one or
other as
On Sat, 17 Mar 2012 16:03:02 +, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:26:52 +, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:22:06AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday
* Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always add
a pwm-names property (or name-pwm-names respectively) to use as label and
fallback to the user OF
On Sunday 18 March 2012, Thierry Reding wrote:
Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details
* Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:22:41 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
* Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
So if we decide to explicitly allow specifying names, then we can always
add
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
+static LIST_HEAD(of_dma_list);
+
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head of_dma_controllers;
+ struct device_node *of_node;
+ int of_dma_n_cells;
+ int (*of_dma_xlate)(struct of_phandle_args *dma_spec, void *data);
+};
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 20:13:22 +, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
+static LIST_HEAD(of_dma_list);
+
+struct of_dma {
+ struct list_head of_dma_controllers;
+ struct device_node *of_node;
+ int of_dma_n_cells;
+
On Sunday 18 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
struct dma_channel *of_dma_request_channel(struct of_node*, int index,
dma_cap_mask_t *mask,
void *driver_data)
{
struct of_phandle_args dma_spec;
struct
On Sunday 18 March 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
Is dma_find_device() a new function? How does it look up the dma
device?
Yes, it would be similar to the proposed function in Benoit's patch
Well, actually we would not even need a new list with all the devices,
it can simply become
/*
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 11:27:36 +0100, Thierry Reding
thierry.red...@avionic-design.de wrote:
* Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
[...]
+ i2c1: i2c@1 {
+ ...
+ dma-request = sdma 2 sdma 3;
+ dma-request-names = tx, rx;
+
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:38:10 +0100, Nicolas Ferre nicolas.fe...@atmel.com
wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA controllers register a generic
translation function, we allow the management of any type of DMA
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:26:52 +, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:22:06AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request
On Saturday 17 March 2012, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:26:52 +, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:22:06AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
Thank you both for missing my point.
#define OMAP24XX_DMA_SHA1MD5_RX 13 /* S_DMA_12 */
#define OMAP34XX_DMA_SHA2MD5_RX 13 /* S_DMA_12 */
#define OMAP242X_DMA_EXT_DMAREQ214 /* S_DMA_13 */
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
For legacy reason another API will export the DMA request number into a
Linux resource of type IORESOURCE_DMA.
Can you explain which legacy scenarios you think this is going to help with?
+/**
+ * of_dma_to_resource - Decode a node's DMA and
On 3/16/2012 11:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
For legacy reason another API will export the DMA request number into a
Linux resource of type IORESOURCE_DMA.
Can you explain which legacy scenarios you think this is going to help with?
We do have
On Friday 16 March 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
And it seems that other ARM SoCs are using it for the same purpose.
There are at least 230+ IORESOURCE_DMA instances in the kernel today.
These tend to be the ones that don't use dmaengine but either the
ISA dma api or a platform specific variant
On 3/16/2012 1:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
And it seems that other ARM SoCs are using it for the same purpose.
There are at least 230+ IORESOURCE_DMA instances in the kernel today.
These tend to be the ones that don't use dmaengine but either
On 03/16/2012 02:28 PM, Cousson, Benoit :
On 3/16/2012 1:04 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 16 March 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
And it seems that other ARM SoCs are using it for the same purpose.
There are at least 230+ IORESOURCE_DMA instances in the kernel today.
These tend to be the
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA controllers register a generic
translation function, we allow the management of any type of DMA requests
specification.
The void * output of an of_dma_xlate() function that will be
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA controllers register a generic
translation function, we allow the management of any type of DMA requests
specification.
The void *
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:22:06AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA controllers register a generic
translation function, we allow the
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 09:22:06AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA
* Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
[...]
+ i2c1: i2c@1 {
+ ...
+ dma-request = sdma 2 sdma 3;
+ dma-request-names = tx, rx;
+ ...
+ };
This is slightly different from how the proposed pwm binding works
On 3/15/2012 10:22 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node and the
DMA request specifications. By making DMA controllers register a generic
translation function, we allow the management of any type
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:30:49PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
This was done like IRQ on purpose, because an Interrupt ReQuest line and
a DMA Request line are really similar for the HW point of view at IP
level.
I'm not sure about that at all levels. Sure, at hardware level they're
the
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:30:49PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
This was done like IRQ on purpose, because an Interrupt ReQuest line and
a DMA Request line are really similar for the HW point of view at IP
level.
I'm not sure
On 3/15/2012 9:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:30:49PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
This was done like IRQ on purpose, because an Interrupt ReQuest line and
a DMA Request line are really similar for the HW point
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:39:12PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
On 3/15/2012 9:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:30:49PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
This was done like IRQ on purpose, because an Interrupt
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I really don't like these behind-the-scenes discussions which never then
get followed up in public, and people then start quoting what was agreed
as that's the way things must be done.
It's a bit like folk at the recent Linaro Connect
47 matches
Mail list logo
