On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:50:35PM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:

On systems where multiple DMA controllers available, non Slave (for example
memcpy operation) users can not be described in DT as there is no device
involved from the DMA controller's point of view, DMA binding is not usable.
However in these systems still a peripheral might need to be serviced by or
it is better to serviced by specific DMA controller.
When a memcpy is used to/from a memory mapped region for example a DMA in the
same domain can perform better.
For generic software modules doing mem 2 mem operations it also matter that
they will get a channel from a controller which is faster in DDR to DDR mode
rather then from the first controller happen to be loaded.

This property is inherited, so it may be specified in a device node or in any
of its parent nodes.

If a device needs mem2mem dma, I think we should just use the existing 
dma binding. The provider will need a way to define cell values which 
mean mem2mem.

For generic s/w, it should be able to query the dma speed or get a 
preferred one IMO. It's not a DT problem.

We measure memcpy speeds at boot time to select the fastest 
implementation for a chip, why not do that for mem2mem DMA?

Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml   | 88 +++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/dma-domain.yaml

Note that you have several errors in your schema. Run 'make dt_bindings_check'.

Rob