From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758083Ab3BBTGe (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:06:34 -0500 Received: from mail-lb0-f179.google.com ([209.85.217.179]:39093 "EHLO mail-lb0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758061Ab3BBTGa (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Feb 2013 14:06:30 -0500 Message-ID: <510D639E.3060706@mvista.com> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 23:06:06 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matt Porter CC: Tony Lindgren , Linux DaVinci Kernel List , Linux OMAP List , Russell King , "Cousson, Benoit" , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Documentation List , Vinod Koul , Linux MMC List , Devicetree Discuss , Mark Brown , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Rob Landley , Dan Williams , Linux SPI Devel List , Chris Ball , Linux ARM Kernel List Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/10] ARM: davinci: move private EDMA API to arm/common References: <1359742975-10421-1-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <1359742975-10421-2-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <5022f635a527470dbd0be932063e9cd2@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201184915.GP2244@beef> <2077c13e12314dc3adc8e5b653855da0@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201185959.GQ2244@beef> <20130202180747.GS2244@beef> In-Reply-To: <20130202180747.GS2244@beef> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 02-02-2013 22:07, Matt Porter wrote: >>>>>>> Move mach-davinci/dma.c to common/edma.c so it can be used >>>>>>> by OMAP (specifically AM33xx) as well. >>>>>> I think this should rather go to drivers/dma/? >>>>> No, this is the private EDMA API. It's the analogous thing to >>>>> the private OMAP dma API that is in plat-omap/dma.c. The actual >>>>> dmaengine driver is in drivers/dma/edma.c as a wrapper around >>>>> this...same way OMAP DMA engine conversion is being done. >>>> Keeps me wondering why we couldn't have the same with CPPI 4.1 when I proposed >>>> that, instead of waiting indefinitely for TI to convert it to drivers/dma/ >>>> directly. We could have working MUSB DMA on OMAP-L1x/Sitara all this time... Sigh. >>> That is a shame. Yeah, I've pointed out that I was doing this exactly >>> the same way as was acceptable for the OMAP DMA conversion since it was >>> in RFC. The reasons are sound since in both cases, we have many drivers >>> to convert that need to continue using the private DMA APIs. >> In case of CPPI 4.1, we'd only have to convert MUSB DMA driver. Other >> in-tree CPPI 4.1 having SoCs don't use it for anything but MUSB -- it even is >> sub-block of their MUSB device, AFAIK (I maybe wrong about Sitaras -- I don't >> know them well). > Well, it's pretty clear to me now that there's good reason for it not > landing in arch/arm/ so the obvious path is to do the dmaengine > conversion and put it in drivers/dma/ if it's really a generic dma engine. > I'm not sure why you express concern over the dma engine api not fitting > with CPPI 4.1? It's not a DMA controller only, it's 3 distinct devices, with the DMA controller being one among them and using another one, the queue manager, as some sort of proxy. The third device doesn't exist on OMAP-L1x SoCs -- it's the buffer manager. > If it doesn't work, work with Vinod to fix the api. It's > expected, I'm working on dmaengine API changes right now to deal with a > limitation of EDMA that needs to be abstracted. Sorry, now it's TI's task. I no longer have time to work on this (my internal project to push OMAP-L1x support upstream has expired at Sep 2010) and my future in MV is very uncertain at this moment. Most probably I'll leave it (or be forced to leave). > As pointed out, edma.c is already here in arch/arm/, so moving it doesn't > add something new. It does let us regression test all platforms that use it > (both Davinci and AM33xx) as I go through the conversion process. Could have been the same with CPPI 4.1 in theory if it was added to mach-davinci/ back in 2009... we'd then only have to move it. EDMA code is much older of course, so it's probably more justified. > -Matt WBR, Sergei From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sergei Shtylyov Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 01/10] ARM: davinci: move private EDMA API to arm/common Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 23:06:06 +0400 Message-ID: <510D639E.3060706@mvista.com> References: <1359742975-10421-1-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <1359742975-10421-2-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <5022f635a527470dbd0be932063e9cd2@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201184915.GP2244@beef> <2077c13e12314dc3adc8e5b653855da0@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201185959.GQ2244@beef> <20130202180747.GS2244@beef> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130202180747.GS2244@beef> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: spi-devel-general-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org To: Matt Porter Cc: Linux DaVinci Kernel List , Chris Ball , Russell King , "Cousson, Benoit" , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Documentation List , Tony Lindgren , Devicetree Discuss , Mark Brown , Linux MMC List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Vinod Koul , Rob Landley , Dan Williams , Linux SPI Devel List , Linux OMAP List , Linux ARM Kernel List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Hello. On 02-02-2013 22:07, Matt Porter wrote: >>>>>>> Move mach-davinci/dma.c to common/edma.c so it can be used >>>>>>> by OMAP (specifically AM33xx) as well. >>>>>> I think this should rather go to drivers/dma/? >>>>> No, this is the private EDMA API. It's the analogous thing to >>>>> the private OMAP dma API that is in plat-omap/dma.c. The actual >>>>> dmaengine driver is in drivers/dma/edma.c as a wrapper around >>>>> this...same way OMAP DMA engine conversion is being done. >>>> Keeps me wondering why we couldn't have the same with CPPI 4.1 when I proposed >>>> that, instead of waiting indefinitely for TI to convert it to drivers/dma/ >>>> directly. We could have working MUSB DMA on OMAP-L1x/Sitara all this time... Sigh. >>> That is a shame. Yeah, I've pointed out that I was doing this exactly >>> the same way as was acceptable for the OMAP DMA conversion since it was >>> in RFC. The reasons are sound since in both cases, we have many drivers >>> to convert that need to continue using the private DMA APIs. >> In case of CPPI 4.1, we'd only have to convert MUSB DMA driver. Other >> in-tree CPPI 4.1 having SoCs don't use it for anything but MUSB -- it even is >> sub-block of their MUSB device, AFAIK (I maybe wrong about Sitaras -- I don't >> know them well). > Well, it's pretty clear to me now that there's good reason for it not > landing in arch/arm/ so the obvious path is to do the dmaengine > conversion and put it in drivers/dma/ if it's really a generic dma engine. > I'm not sure why you express concern over the dma engine api not fitting > with CPPI 4.1? It's not a DMA controller only, it's 3 distinct devices, with the DMA controller being one among them and using another one, the queue manager, as some sort of proxy. The third device doesn't exist on OMAP-L1x SoCs -- it's the buffer manager. > If it doesn't work, work with Vinod to fix the api. It's > expected, I'm working on dmaengine API changes right now to deal with a > limitation of EDMA that needs to be abstracted. Sorry, now it's TI's task. I no longer have time to work on this (my internal project to push OMAP-L1x support upstream has expired at Sep 2010) and my future in MV is very uncertain at this moment. Most probably I'll leave it (or be forced to leave). > As pointed out, edma.c is already here in arch/arm/, so moving it doesn't > add something new. It does let us regression test all platforms that use it > (both Davinci and AM33xx) as I go through the conversion process. Could have been the same with CPPI 4.1 in theory if it was added to mach-davinci/ back in 2009... we'd then only have to move it. EDMA code is much older of course, so it's probably more justified. > -Matt WBR, Sergei ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sshtylyov@mvista.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 23:06:06 +0400 Subject: [PATCH v7 01/10] ARM: davinci: move private EDMA API to arm/common In-Reply-To: <20130202180747.GS2244@beef> References: <1359742975-10421-1-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <1359742975-10421-2-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <5022f635a527470dbd0be932063e9cd2@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201184915.GP2244@beef> <2077c13e12314dc3adc8e5b653855da0@DFLE72.ent.ti.com> <20130201185959.GQ2244@beef> <20130202180747.GS2244@beef> Message-ID: <510D639E.3060706@mvista.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 02-02-2013 22:07, Matt Porter wrote: >>>>>>> Move mach-davinci/dma.c to common/edma.c so it can be used >>>>>>> by OMAP (specifically AM33xx) as well. >>>>>> I think this should rather go to drivers/dma/? >>>>> No, this is the private EDMA API. It's the analogous thing to >>>>> the private OMAP dma API that is in plat-omap/dma.c. The actual >>>>> dmaengine driver is in drivers/dma/edma.c as a wrapper around >>>>> this...same way OMAP DMA engine conversion is being done. >>>> Keeps me wondering why we couldn't have the same with CPPI 4.1 when I proposed >>>> that, instead of waiting indefinitely for TI to convert it to drivers/dma/ >>>> directly. We could have working MUSB DMA on OMAP-L1x/Sitara all this time... Sigh. >>> That is a shame. Yeah, I've pointed out that I was doing this exactly >>> the same way as was acceptable for the OMAP DMA conversion since it was >>> in RFC. The reasons are sound since in both cases, we have many drivers >>> to convert that need to continue using the private DMA APIs. >> In case of CPPI 4.1, we'd only have to convert MUSB DMA driver. Other >> in-tree CPPI 4.1 having SoCs don't use it for anything but MUSB -- it even is >> sub-block of their MUSB device, AFAIK (I maybe wrong about Sitaras -- I don't >> know them well). > Well, it's pretty clear to me now that there's good reason for it not > landing in arch/arm/ so the obvious path is to do the dmaengine > conversion and put it in drivers/dma/ if it's really a generic dma engine. > I'm not sure why you express concern over the dma engine api not fitting > with CPPI 4.1? It's not a DMA controller only, it's 3 distinct devices, with the DMA controller being one among them and using another one, the queue manager, as some sort of proxy. The third device doesn't exist on OMAP-L1x SoCs -- it's the buffer manager. > If it doesn't work, work with Vinod to fix the api. It's > expected, I'm working on dmaengine API changes right now to deal with a > limitation of EDMA that needs to be abstracted. Sorry, now it's TI's task. I no longer have time to work on this (my internal project to push OMAP-L1x support upstream has expired at Sep 2010) and my future in MV is very uncertain at this moment. Most probably I'll leave it (or be forced to leave). > As pointed out, edma.c is already here in arch/arm/, so moving it doesn't > add something new. It does let us regression test all platforms that use it > (both Davinci and AM33xx) as I go through the conversion process. Could have been the same with CPPI 4.1 in theory if it was added to mach-davinci/ back in 2009... we'd then only have to move it. EDMA code is much older of course, so it's probably more justified. > -Matt WBR, Sergei