"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Haavard Skinnemoen
> <haavard.skinnemoen@atmel.com> wrote:
> > Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com> wrote:  
> >> Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> >>  
> >> > Wouldn't it be better if the dmaengine layer made sure it didn't pass
> >> > the same channel several times to a client?  
> >>
> >> Wouldn't that require it to keep track of which clients have already seen which
> >> channels?  It might make more sense, but it's probably easier the current way.  
> >
> > I guess so. What would be even more simple is to simply prevent other
> > clients from taking a channel once someone has acked it, which would be
> > perfect for my purposes, but perhaps not everyone else's...  
> 
> Does not seem too bad to have something like a DMA_EXCL flag in
> dma_chan to tell the core not to show this channel to any other
> clients.

Yes, or maybe provide an interface for simply requesting a channel
without having to register any callbacks. With some drivers, the number
of required channels is fixed, and not using DMA just isn't an option.
A simple "get a channel which satisfies these constraints" interface
would simplify these drivers a lot.

Haavard
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/