[Ksummit-2013-discuss] ARM topic: Is DT on ARM the solution, or is there something better?

[David Woodhouse]

>
> On Thu, 2013-10-24 at 12:22 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>> If you are correct to insist that DMA needs yo be supported in the new
>> driver *even* with old firmware, then yes, maybe.
>
> if DMA gives a performance boost for all workloads, what is the argument
> for not always enabling it ?

If DMA gives a performance boost for all workloads, what bloody idiot
defined or reviewed a DT binding that didn't include the information which
is required to uae DMA? :)


>> The alternative is a quirk to "fix" the DT up on the affected boards and
>> not actually doing the special cases in the driver itself. But that can
>> be
>> seen as an implementation detail.
>
> I don't understand why having the soc-foo.h with the internal interrupt
> mapping in the kernel tree is a no-no, whereas it's ok to add the
> missing part of it in the form of fixups or directly in driver code.

It's the difference between doing it as a matter of course, and doing it
only in the very rare "OMG we fucked up but we really *need* to fix it up
this time" case.


-- 
dwmw2