On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:47:06AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:

On 11-10-21, 16:17, Stephan Gerhold wrote:

quoted

In some configurations, the BAM DMA controller is set up by a remote
processor and the local processor can simply start making use of it
without setting up the BAM. This is already supported using the
"qcom,controlled-remotely" property.

However, for some reason another possible configuration is that the
remote processor is responsible for powering up the BAM, but we are
still responsible for initializing it (e.g. resetting it etc). Add
a "qcom,powered-remotely" property to describe that configuration.

Signed-off-by: Stephan Gerhold <stephan@gerhold.net>
---
Changes since RFC:
  - Rename qcom,remote-power-collapse -> qcom,powered-remotely
    for consistency with "qcom,controlled-remotely"

NOTE: This is *not* a compile-time requirement for the BAM-DMUX driver
      so this could also go through the dmaengine tree.

Can we split that this to dmaengine & net series if there is not
dependency on the two... I think I skipped rev1 when I saw net-next

Sure, I have now sent a v3 for the dmaengine changes without the
BAM-DMUX driver.

The original reason for having them in one series was to better see how
the dmaengine changes are used together with the design of the BAM-DMUX
driver. I discussed some alternative approaches in the original RFC
which only made sense in combination with the BAM-DMUX driver:
https://lore.kernel.org/dmaengine/20210719145317.79692-3-stephan@gerhold.net/ (local)

Thanks!
Stephan