Messages in this thread |  | | From | Robert Jarzmik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] ARM: pxa: transition to dmaengine phase 1 | Date | Mon, 16 Feb 2015 17:54:15 +0100 |
| |
Vasily Khoruzhick <anarsoul@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 1:47 AM, Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@free.fr> wrote: >> In order to slowly transition pxa to dmaengine, the legacy code will now >> rely on dmaengine to request a channel. > > Hi Robert, > > What about dropping old PXA DMA code completely? Daniel Mack did port > for most of PXA drivers to dma engine, > I've rebased his patches against 3.17 several months ago and fixed > oopses in pxamci and asoc drivers, but I didn't resubmit whole series > due to lack of time.
Well, it's the last step, yes. But I want a "smooth transition" : if amongst the ported drivers one starts to bug, I want to be able to revert _only_ that driver port to dmaengine, and not _all_ the drivers.
That's the rationale of this patch : - phase 1 : enable peacefull coexistence of legacy pxa_request_dma() and dmaengine for pxa, for both devicetree and legacy platforms - phase 2 : port the drivers, and ensure the work correctly This might take a couple of cycles Note that phase 1 ensures that submissions can go through each maintainer's tree without need for strong consistence. - phase 3 : revert the mmp_pdma patch, and drop arch/arm/plat-pxa/dma.c
> My 3.17 tree is at [1], I've tested it on pxa270 machine (Zipit Z2), > and everything works fine so far. I guess it won't be too much work to > rebase it against linux-3.20. Oh, do you volunteer ? That would indeed ease up my burden. I only rebased pxa3xx_nand, so any help to submit and push is welcome. At least I can commit to review, and I would concentrate on pxa_camera.c in the meantime.
Cheers.
-- Robert
|  |