On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 03:50:31PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, 2012-05-25 at 18:30 +0900, Tomoya MORINAGA wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Mark Brown
I'm not so familiar with Linux's DMA idea. So we don't know whether non-cyclic dmaengine has problem or not.
Nobody has written the code, this is the problem! If the code is not there, you should try to write it. If there is some great problem writing the code then you should t
First you should not be writing your own dma driver, it *needs* to use dmaenegine. We already have bunch of driver supported, so there may be a
He's already done that, their current code is all open coded dmaengine stuff.
As you said, common code for DMA code can be best solution. However, currently, the code is nothing. So, I want you to accept our driver as first step. Because I think supporting new device is more important for linux than dmaengine common.
The existing code is far from nothing, there is a fairly substantial dmaengine library there already which should share a big chunk of code with any cyclic support. If you were saying "this is too hard for $REASON" that'd be one thing but that's not what you're saying here. It's possible that there is actually some substantial difficult but my first instinct would be that it should be relatively straightforward.