Messages in this thread |  | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Tue, 4 Feb 2020 09:01:55 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards dma_request_slave_chan() |
| |
Hi Peter,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 7:52 AM Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> wrote: > On 03/02/2020 22.34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:21 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > > <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > >> On 2/3/20 2:32 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>> Both rspi and sh-msiof have users on legacy SH (i.e. without DT): > >> > >> FWIW, there is a patch set by Yoshinori Sato to add device tree support > >> for classical SuperH hardware. It was never merged, unfortunately :(. > > > > True. > > > >>> Anyone who cares for DMA on SuperH? > >> > >> What is DMA used for on SuperH? Wouldn't dropping it cut support for > >> essential hardware features? > > > > It may make a few things slower. > > I would not drop DMA support but I would suggest to add dma_slave_map > for non DT boot so the _compat() can be dropped.
Which is similar in spirit to gpiod_lookup and clk_register_clkdev(), right?
> Imho on lower spec SoC (and I believe SuperH is) the DMA makes big > difference offloading data movement from the CPU.
Assumed it is actually used...
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
|  |