From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Koul, Vinod" Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 6/6] spi/spi-pl022: Request/free DMA channels as and when required. Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:23:53 +0530 Message-ID: <1312995233.1603.6.camel@vkoul-udesk3> References: <566c0525199f498f04422d4c3b2ddd7466648c20.1312965742.git.viresh.kumar@st.com> <20110810090042.GE1831@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4E424F7B.2000800@st.com> <438BB0150E931F4B9CE701519A4463010871804A15@bgsmsx502.gar.corp.intel.com> <4E4259F5.8060402@st.com> <20110810103225.GJ1831@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Pratyush ANAND , Rajeev KUMAR , Bhavna YADAV , Bhupesh SHARMA , Armando VISCONTI , "linus.walleij@linaro.org" , "jassisinghbrar@gmail.com" , Vipin KUMAR , "grant.likely@secretlab.ca" , Shiraz HASHIM , Amit VIRDI , Vipul Kumar SAMAR , "viresh.linux@gmail.com" , Deepak SIKRI , "spi-devel-general@lists.sourceforge.net" , "Williams, Dan J" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" To: Russell King - ARM Linux Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110810103225.GJ1831@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org 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? (as Russell articulated it is bad > > > to dynamically assign channel for something like uart) > > > > Are you talking about channels or DMA request lines? For channels yes, > > we can always allocate channels as they are independent of peripherals. > > About request lines, they are muxed in our case between several > > peripherals, but support for that has to be added in dw_dmac. > > Right, and when you do, you'll probably have to go to a virtual channel > implementation, which solves the problem of keeping a channel allocated > and makes this patch redundant. > > I assert that any DMA engine implementation where request signals can > be assigned dynamically to DMA channels should be using a virtual channel > implementation. Agreed, virtual channels can ensure that channels can be shared dynamically. If h/w has capability it should be able to do a spi transfer followed by emmc transfer ans so forth... Current model of giving client exclusive access to a channel doesn't allow this -- ~Vinod