[PATCH] of: Add generic device tree DMA helpers

[Cousson, Benoit]

On 3/15/2012 9:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 March 2012, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 05:30:49PM +0100, Cousson, Benoit wrote:
>>> This was done like IRQ on purpose, because an Interrupt ReQuest line and
>>> a DMA Request line are really similar for the HW point of view at IP
>>> level.
>>
>> I'm not sure about that at all levels.  Sure, at hardware level they're
>> the same, but I think the flat numeric namespace for IRQs has been
>> proven to be a problem when there's multiple IRQ controllers in the
>> system.
>
> In the DT bindings, both IRQ and the suggested DMA are not flat number
> spaces, but instead can be of arbitrarly length defined by the controller.
>
>> As far as I'm concerned for DMA stuff, there is currently no real solution
>> for a DT representation; TI have asked me to take over the conversion of
>> OMAP DMA support to the DMA engine API, and I'm not yet convinced that
>> the existing numbering system is the right solution - especially as
>> there's several overlapping numberspaces for OMAP DMA numbers which
>> are SoC specific.
>
> The numbers definitely need to become local to each of the controllers, but
> that is the case pretty much automatically using the proposed binding,
> because each dma request identifier starts with the phandle of the
> controller.

Indeed, and in the case of the OMAP SDMA controller, it can handle up to 
127 DMA request lines numbered from 0 to 126... So a local number seems 
to be a good representation... especially for a number. I'm not sure to 
understand the issue with this binding.

And AFAIK, there is the only one general purpose DMA controller in OMAP 
so far. The other ones are private to some IPs like MMC or USB, so they 
do not need necessarily need any DT representation.
But anyway, since the controller phandle is mandatory, it will be able 
to handle even several instances of this DMA controller without any issue.

Regards
Benoit