On Sunday 24 February 2013, Markus Pargmann wrote:

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 10:16:21PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Saturday 23 February 2013, Markus Pargmann wrote:

quoted

There are actually two more members in the imx_dma_data structure. Shouldn't those
be encoded in the dma specifier as well?

imx_dma_data is used by imx-dma and imx-sdma, but imx-dma does not use
peripheral_type and priority. When not loaded from devicetree
imx_dma_data is constructed by imx drivers without knowledge about the
dma driver. This patch moves the initialization to the driver, so I
think there is no need to fill all fields. I didn't want to use a new
struct because the imx drivers could still use this old way.

Ok, got it.

quoted

quoted

 static inline int imx_dma_is_ipu(struct dma_chan *chan)

@@ -63,7 +66,8 @@ static inline int imx_dma_is_general_purpose(struct dma_chan *chan)
 	return strstr(dev_name(chan->device->dev), "sdma") ||
 		!strcmp(dev_name(chan->device->dev), "imx1-dma") ||
 		!strcmp(dev_name(chan->device->dev), "imx21-dma") ||
-		!strcmp(dev_name(chan->device->dev), "imx27-dma");
+		!strcmp(dev_name(chan->device->dev), "imx27-dma") ||
+		!strcmp(chan->device->dev->driver->name, "imx-dma");
 }

Also, your filter function does not actually check
imx_dma_is_general_purpose() as the old style filter functions
in the slave drivers do, which breaks when you have more than one dma engine
in the system.

Oh yes, in the filter function should be a device driver comparison. But
I would prefer a direct check instead of imx_dma_is_general_purpose because
I think the driver should not define a filter function that initializes data
for another driver (sdma).

Yes, that is also how I did it in the dwdma patches. Basically  I have
the dma engine object passed into xlate and then from there into the
filter, where I can compare it against chan->device.

	Arnd