Re: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards dma_request_slave_chan()

[Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>]

Hi Geert, Adrian,

On 03/02/2020 22.34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> 
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:21 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>> On 2/3/20 2:32 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>> Both rspi and sh-msiof have users on legacy SH (i.e. without DT):
>>
>> FWIW, there is a patch set by Yoshinori Sato to add device tree support
>> for classical SuperH hardware. It was never merged, unfortunately :(.
> 
> True.
> 
>>> Anyone who cares for DMA on SuperH?
>>
>> What is DMA used for on SuperH? Wouldn't dropping it cut support for
>> essential hardware features?
> 
> It may make a few things slower.

I would not drop DMA support but I would suggest to add dma_slave_map
for non DT boot so the _compat() can be dropped.

Imho on lower spec SoC (and I believe SuperH is) the DMA makes big
difference offloading data movement from the CPU.

> Does any of your SuperH boards use DMA?
> Anything interesting in /proc or /sys w.r.t. DMA?
> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 

- Péter

Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki