Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards dma_request_slave_chan() | From | Peter Ujfalusi <> | Date | Tue, 4 Feb 2020 08:52:37 +0200 |
| |
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 > <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.
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
|  |