On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 04:28:46PM +0000, Nipun Gupta wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Greg KH [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 15:05 > > To: Nipun Gupta <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > > foundation.org; [email protected]; linux-arm- > > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Bharat Bhushan > > <[email protected]>; Leo Li <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drivers: remove force dma flag from buses > > > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2018 at 12:25:23PM +0530, Nipun Gupta wrote: > > > With each bus implementing its own DMA configuration callback, > > > there is no need for bus to explicitly have force_dma in its > > > global structure. This patch modifies of_dma_configure API to > > > accept an input parameter which specifies if implicit DMA > > > configuration is required even when it is not described by the > > > firmware. > > > > Having to "remember" what that bool variable means on the end of the > > function call is a royal pain over time, right? > > > > Why not just create a new function: > > dma_common_configure_force(dma) > > that always does this? Leave "dma_common_configure()" alone, and then > > wrap the old code with these two helper functions that call the 'core' > > code with the bool set properly? > > > > That way you do not have to "know" what that parameter is, the function > > name just documents it automatically, so when you see it in the > > bus-specific code, no need to go and have to hunt for anything. And if > > you are reading the dma core code, it's obvious what is happening as the > > functions are all right there. > > How about we do not pass any flag in 'dma_common_configure()', and inside this > API we pass "true" to 'of_dma_configure()'? I am saying this because currently > both the busses (platform and AMBA) which uses 'dma_common_configure()' passes > "true" value. If we create additional 'dma_common_configure_force()', then > 'dma_common_configure()' will not be used anytime and will become redundant. > > If someday new busses come and they needs to use similar functionality which > 'dma_common_configure()' provides, but with passing "false" to > 'of_dma_configure()', > then what you suggests of having two separate such API's will be more > reasonable > and can be implemented?
If that makes things "simple", yes, sounds good. greg k-h _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
