[RFC PATCH 1/2] of: Add generic device tree DMA helpers

[Nicolas Ferre]

On 02/27/2012 03:22 PM, Cousson, Benoit :
> On 2/27/2012 2:09 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 02/23/2012 04:57 PM, Cousson, Benoit :
>>> On 2/23/2012 4:51 PM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>>> On 02/23/2012 11:03 AM, Cousson, Benoit :
>>>>> Salut Nico,
>>>>
>>>> Coucou Benoit ;-)
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/2012 11:59 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>>>>> On 01/27/2012 06:29 PM, Cousson, Benoit :
>>>>>>> Add some basic helpers to retrieve a DMA controller device_node
>>>>>>> and the DMA request line number.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For legacy reason another API will export the DMA request number
>>>>>>> into a Linux resource of type IORESOURCE_DMA.
>>>>>>> This API is usable only on system with an unique DMA controller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I followed that discussion and I like very much the biding that
>>>>>> Benoit
>>>>>> is proposing. It will help me a lot with my current work on Atmel DMA
>>>>>> controller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I understand correctly, some rework is needed before it can be
>>>>>> integrated in a stable git tree (I mean before we can base our
>>>>>> work on
>>>>>> top of it). So, in the meantime, what should I do to help and make
>>>>>> things go forward? to be quite frank, I would be interested to have a
>>>>>> working DMA enabled device soon ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Me too, but unfortunately, I was busy trying to add irq_domain and
>>>>> fixing issues with SPARSE_IRQ on OMAP :-(
>>>>
>>>> Been there, loved that ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that 3.4 is out of reach?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe not, from the comments, it looks like we should add a .xlate
>>>>> callback to allow any custom parsing of the DMA nodes attributes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll be more than happy, if you can finalize that patch :-)
>>>>
>>>> I will try to figure out what I can understand from the irq
>>>> mechanism of
>>>> .xlate and try to see if I can implement it on top of your patch.
>>>
>>> In fact that dma code is a big copy/paste of the of/gpio one and gpio
>>> was already managing .xlate function.
>>> I removed it because I thought it was useless for the DMA :-)
>>>
>>> You might just have to copy the original code...
>>
>> The thing is that with gpio, we can rely on the gpio_chip structure for
>> having a common storage location of such .xlate callbacks.
>> In our DMA case, I guess that we should not cling to dmaengine
>> infrastructure because not all of us are using it right now.
> 
> Yep, that's the main issue compared to GPIO or IRQ.
> 
>> So, maybe we should provide some simple "xlate" helpers like the
>> irqdomain ones. But I fear that a "callback" directly called from the
>> of_get_dma_request() function is not possible (the gpio code model).
> 
> I think a well that we cannot much but a simple very abstract callback
> since we do not have any formal DMA representation?
> 
> I'm not sure to understand you concern?

Well, in fact I cannot find a place where to store a "xlate" callback:
- it have to be provided by the DMA controller (the one pointed out by
the phandle) and not the caller of the of_get_dma_request() funtion
- it has to be generic enough to match the dmaengine/non-dmaengine cases
(so it cannot be stored in the dmaengine "struct dma_device").

So I guess that the very basic idea of returning the full DMA specifier
(struct of_phandle_args) is the best... My only concern is that the
"helper" becomes very short and empty in this case...

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre