On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 20:21 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
>
> > Sorry I still don't get this schema and how it can be scaled and be
> > generic enough to let it carry with various implementations.
> >
> > Can you publish your complete idea rather
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
>> >> > The lookup of a device DMA channel should follow the
>> >> > design pattern set by regulators and clocks.
>> >> Nopes. It depends upon the subsystem.
>> >> We should strive towards making this scheme as 'standalone' as
>> >> possible.
>>
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 00:29 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >> > The lookup of a device DMA channel should follow the
> >> > design pattern set by regulators and clocks.
> >> Nopes. It depends upon the subsystem.
> >> We should strive towards making
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Jassi Brar :
>
>> Do you have any reason for using device pointer and strings, other
>> than just "because clock and regulator use them" ??
>
> Basically no.
Dear, I am speechless !!
Best of luck.
Do you propose to implement
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 16:48 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/8/11 Jassi Brar :
>
> > Do you have any reason for using device pointer and strings, other
> > than just "because clock and regulator use them" ??
>
> Basically no.
>
> But I think these frameworks are very workable and proven
> to w
2011/8/11 Jassi Brar :
> Do you have any reason for using device pointer and strings, other
> than just "because clock and regulator use them" ??
Basically no.
But I think these frameworks are very workable and proven
to work in practice. So I like them.
When setting up the platform the coder w
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 6:25 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> 2011/8/10 Jassi Brar :
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Linus Walleij
>> wrote:
Linus W, was there anything you said wouldn't work with the scheme ?
Please tell now on the record.
>>>
>>> It would *work* but the current proposa
2011/8/10 Jassi Brar :
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
>>> Linus W, was there anything you said wouldn't work with the scheme ?
>>> Please tell now on the record.
>>
>> It would *work* but the current proposal is *not elegant* IMO.
>
> would *work* -> You could find no
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>> > The lookup of a device DMA channel should follow the
>> > design pattern set by regulators and clocks.
>> Nopes. It depends upon the subsystem.
>> We should strive towards making this scheme as 'standalone' as
>> possible.
>> Client having to
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:46 +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Linus Walleij
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jassi Brar
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> >>>
> >>> I discussed this with Linus on the bus back from C
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>>
>>> I discussed this with Linus on the bus back from Cambridge in the evening,
>>> and it appears that the story you gave me
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
>>
>> I discussed this with Linus on the bus back from Cambridge in the evening,
>> and it appears that the story you gave me was inaccurate - Linus had not
>> agreed to your proposal and
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:01:13PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:59 +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> >> On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 11:32 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:44:13PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 08/10/2011 03:31 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> > > And on your patch, are you able to dynamically assign the channels for
> > > platform? What is the intended usage?
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:39:28PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
>> > On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >>> > They must be allocated when they are require
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 04:01:13PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:59 +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> >> On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> >> > They must be allocated when they are required and must
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:44:13PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 03:31 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> > And on your patch, are you able to dynamically assign the channels for
> > platform? What is the intended usage? (as Russell articulated it is bad
> > to dynamically assign channel for som
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:59 +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
>> On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >> > They must be allocated when they are required and must be freed after
>> >> > we are
>> >> > done with transfers. So that
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:39:28PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> > On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> > They must be allocated when they are required and must be freed after
> >>> > we are
> >>> > done with transfers.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 03:31:42PM +0530, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> I would agree on both counts :)
>
> In some cases it does make sense to hold the channel for the lifetime
> like uart or where the channel has been tied to an interface by SoC
> designer.
> But in some cases like dw_dmac it seems you c
On 08/10/2011 03:31 PM, Koul, Vinod wrote:
> And on your patch, are you able to dynamically assign the channels for
> platform? What is the intended usage? (as Russell articulated it is bad
> to dynamically assign channel for something like uart)
Are you talking about channels or DMA request lines
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> > They must be allocated when they are required and must be freed after we
>>> > are
>>> > done with transfers. So that they can be used by other users.
>> Which DMA engine driver re
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 14:59 +0530, viresh kumar wrote:
> On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> > They must be allocated when they are required and must be freed after we
> >> > are
> >> > done with transfers. So that they can be used by other users.
> > Which DMA engine driv
On 08/10/2011 02:30 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> > They must be allocated when they are required and must be freed after we
>> > are
>> > done with transfers. So that they can be used by other users.
> Which DMA engine driver requires this?
>
dw_dmac.c
> Normally, when we have DMA eng
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:20:59PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Currently we request DMA channels at probe time and free them at remove. They
> are always occupied, irrespective of their usage.
>
> They must be allocated when they are required and must be freed after we are
> done with transfers.
25 matches
Mail list logo
