[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards dma_request_slave_chan()
Hi Geert, Adrian,

On 03/02/2020 22.34, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Adrian,
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 9:21 PM John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
> <> 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.

Imho on lower spec SoC (and I believe SuperH is) the DMA makes big
difference offloading data movement from the CPU.

> Does any of your SuperH boards use DMA?
> Anything interesting in /proc or /sys w.r.t. DMA?
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> Geert

- Péter

Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki

 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-04 07:53    [W:0.053 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site