Re: [PATCH] DMAEngine: Define generic transfer request api

[Jassi Brar]

On 19 August 2011 19:49, Linus Walleij <linus.ml.walleij@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/8/19 Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 15:06 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Koul, Vinod <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I think Sundaram is in the position of doing some heavy work on
>>> using one or the other of the API:s, and I think he is better
>>> suited than anyone else of us to select what scheme to use,
>>> in the end he's going to write the first code using the API.
>
>> And Unfortunately TI folks don't seem to care about this discussion :(
>> Haven't seen anything on this from them, or on previous RFC by Jassi
>
> Well if there is no code usig the API then there is no rush
> in merging it either I guess. Whenever someone (TI or
> Samsung) cook some driver patches they can choose their
> approach.
>
No, it's not a matter of "choice".
If that were the case, Sundaram already proposed a TI specific
flag. Why wait for him to tell his choice again?

You might, but I can't molest my sensibility to believe that a Vendor
specific flag could be better than a generic solution.
Not here at least, where the overhead due to generality is not much.
(though I can trim some 'futuristic' members from the 'struct xfer_template')

Maintainers might wait as long as they want, but there should never
be an option to have vendor specific hacks.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/