[PATCH V2] dma: tegra: register as an OF DMA controller

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 12/04/2013 06:09 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 12/03/2013 06:22 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 03 December 2013, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 11/29/2013 02:08 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>
>>>> Can you try coming up with a different method to achieve the same
>>>> where you use a different helper from the driver specific xlate
>>>> function that does not require a callback?
>>>>
>>>> I think dma_get_slave_channel is great if you have one channel per
>>>> request line and you can directly look up the channel from the
>>>> DT data, but it is not good if you have pick a channel and work
>>>> around the race.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Can you take a look at "[PATCH V4] dma: add
>>> dma_get_any_slave_channel(), for use in of_xlate()" at the link below.
>>> It still implements this via xlate, but I don't see any benefit in
>>> making drivers use a different API to request slave channels based on
>>> how the DMA controller works.
>>>
>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2013/11/26/408
>>
>> Yes, I think that is good. I can think of a few variations of that
>> that I would prefer slightly over your code, but it's essentially
>> what I had in mind and I'm fine with that version getting merged
>> as well. Here are my ideas for further improvements, I'll leave
>> it up to you and the dmaengine maintainers to decide what to do
>> about them:
>>
>> * Rather than calling private_candidate(), open-code the part you
>>   need and remove the pointless dma_cap_mask comparison:
>>
>> 	err = -EBUSY;
>>         list_for_each_entry(chan, &dev->channels, device_node) {
>>                 if (!chan->client_count) {
>> 			err = dma_chan_get(chan);
>> 			break;
>> 		}
>> 	}
> 
> Lars-Peter had specifically suggested to call private_candidate(). Lars,
> what do you think about open-coding this? Arnd's suggestion would skip
> the DMA_PRIVATE checking that private_candidate() does, and I'm not sure
> what the implications of that would be.

It's not like this is a hot path or that the mask checking is expensive. I'd
keep it as it is for the sake of not having the same code twice. And the
DMA_PRIVATE check should probably also stay.

- Lars