| Message ID | CAOMZO5C4DuTt9vSrdOLfXhLbZ-rjJ0iKjtEyEDd4A4MSW0Wb=Q@mail.gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
On 2017-06-06 15:19, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote: > >> FWIW, I would prefer the HAVE_MXS_DMA solution, this also makes it less >> likely that new SoC forget to add MXS_DMA support since it will be >> inside arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig. > > I think that a cleaner solution would be to do like this: > > --- a/drivers/dma/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/dma/Kconfig > @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ config MV_XOR_V2 > > config MXS_DMA > bool "MXS DMA support" > - depends on SOC_IMX23 || SOC_IMX28 || SOC_IMX6Q || SOC_IMX6UL > + depends on ARCH_MXS || ARCH_MXC > select STMP_DEVICE > select DMA_ENGINE > help > > What do you think? Not sure, is really every ARCH_MXS/MXC supporting DMA? But then, is it a problem if we allow to enable a driver although not available in a certain SoC? -- Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote: > Not sure, is really every ARCH_MXS/MXC supporting DMA? All ARCH_MXS (mx23 and mx28) support MXS DMA. Not every ARCH_MXC supports MXS DMA. For example mx27/25/31/35/50/51/53 do not have the mxs dma block. > But then, is it a problem if we allow to enable a driver although not > available in a certain SoC? I don't think it is a problem. Currently we do the same for the sdma driver. IMX_SDMA also contains 'depends on ARCH_MXC' even though not all ARCH_MXC has the the SDMA engine. mx27, for example does not have it, so this proposal seems safe. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 07:30:23PM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:22 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch> wrote: > > > Not sure, is really every ARCH_MXS/MXC supporting DMA? > > All ARCH_MXS (mx23 and mx28) support MXS DMA. > > Not every ARCH_MXC supports MXS DMA. For example > mx27/25/31/35/50/51/53 do not have the mxs dma block. > > > But then, is it a problem if we allow to enable a driver although not > > available in a certain SoC? > > I don't think it is a problem. And if the SoC doesn't support, do you see an issue? The module should just get init and keep quiet, it wont get probed. > > Currently we do the same for the sdma driver. > > IMX_SDMA also contains 'depends on ARCH_MXC' even though not all > ARCH_MXC has the the SDMA engine. mx27, for example does not have it, > so this proposal seems safe.
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 2:27 AM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> wrote: > And if the SoC doesn't support, do you see an issue? The module should just > get init and keep quiet, it wont get probed. Correct, it should be not an issue. I sent a v2 with this approach. It aligns with the other i.MX DMA engines (IMX_DMA and IMX_SDMA) where we do 'depends on ARCH_MXC'. Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--- a/drivers/dma/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/dma/Kconfig @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ config MV_XOR_V2 config MXS_DMA bool "MXS DMA support" - depends on SOC_IMX23 || SOC_IMX28 || SOC_IMX6Q || SOC_IMX6UL + depends on ARCH_MXS || ARCH_MXC select STMP_DEVICE select DMA_ENGINE help