lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] dma: of: Remove restriction that #dma-cells can't be 0
Date
On Monday 22 April 2013, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>
> On 04/22/2013 02:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Monday 22 April 2013, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> >>
> >> There is no sensible reason why #dma-cells shouldn't be allowed to be 0. It is
> >> completely up to the DMA controller how many additional parameters, besides the
> >> phandle, it needs to identify a channel. E.g. for DMA controller with only one
> >> channel or for DMA controllers which don't have a restriction on which channel
> >> can be used for which peripheral it completely legitimate to not require any
> >> additional parameters.
> >>
> >> Also fixes the following warning:
> >> drivers/dma/of-dma.c: In function 'of_dma_controller_register':
> >> drivers/dma/of-dma.c:67:7: warning: 'nbcells' may be used uninitialized in this function
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
> >
> > Do you have an example for this? If a dma engine has only one request line,
> > why would you even use the dmaengine subsystem for it, rather than including
> > the code to program it in the slave driver?
>
> Why wouldn't I use the dmaengine subsystem for a DMA controller? In my
> particular case different instances of the same DMA core will be used with
> different DMA slaves. And the DMA slaves can also have different DMA master
> cores, depending on the system.

Right, that makes sense.

Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-22 17:42    [W:0.070 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site