[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] DMA: TXx9 Soc DMA Controller driver (v2)

To: Atsushi Nemoto <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMA: TXx9 Soc DMA Controller driver (v2)
From: Dan Williams <>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 14:59:28 -0700
Cc: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20080421)
Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:05:15 -0700, Dan Williams <> 
Not quite "ackable" yet...

Thank you for review!

There seems to be a lot of ifdef magic in the code based on these
defines.  Can we move this magic and some of the pure definitions to
drivers/dma/txx9dmac.h?  (See the "#ifdefs are ugly" section of

OK, I will try to clean them up.  But since I don't want to export
internal implementation details, some of the magics will be left in
txx9dmac.c, perhaps.

You only need to hide txx9dmac magic if the header was in include/linux/, but since it will be in drivers/dma/ you can assume it is private.
Is there a reason to keep f'irst' off of the tx_list?  It seems like
you could simplify this logic and get rid of the scary looking
list_splice followed by list_add in txx9dmac_desc_put.  It also seems
odd that the descriptors on tx_list are not reachable from the
dc->queue list after a submit... but maybe I am missing a subtle

Well, I'm not sure what do you mean...

The completion callback handler of the first descriptor should be
called _after_ the completion of the _last_ child of the descriptor.
Also I use desc_node for both dc->queue, dc->active_list and
txd.tx_list.  So if I putted all children to dc->queue or
dc->active_list, txx9dmac_descriptor_complete() (or its caller) will
be more complex.

Or do you mean adding another list_head to maintain txd.tx_list?  Or
something another at all?

The piece I was missing was that it would make txx9dmac_descriptor_complete() more complex. So, I am fine with the leaving the current implementation.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>