On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:49:08AM +0100, Niklas Söderlund wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On 2016-02-21 20:50:46 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma
> > addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this
> > was a convenient notion coming
On Monday 22 February 2016 13:31:04 Wolfram Sang wrote:
>
> > > Original-patch-by: Linus Walleij
> >
> > You've dropped a few
> >
> > Original-patch-acked-by: Lee Jones
> > Original-patch-acked-by: Arnd Bergmann
>
> I'd
> > But in case of slave, we know the dmaengine and always use a
> > specific one. Further the IOMMU cases can lead to failure of this
> > notion, so make this as physical address and now dmaengine driver
> > will do the required mapping.
>
> You could also add "This finally bring the code in
Hi Vinod,
On Sunday 21 February 2016 20:50:46 Vinod Koul wrote:
> The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma
> addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this
s/While this/This/ ?
> was a convenient notion coming from generic dma offload cases
> where
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:37:10AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma
> > addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this
> >
Hi Vinod,
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma
> addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this
> was a convenient notion coming from generic dma offload cases
> where dmaengines
The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma
addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this
was a convenient notion coming from generic dma offload cases
where dmaengines are interchangeable and client is not aware of
which engine to map to.
But in case of slave,