Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 23:23:49 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?= <mans@mansr.com>
Cc: Sebastian Frias <sf84@laposte.net>, Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Jon Mason <jdmason@kudzu.us>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>,
        Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com>,
        Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>,
        Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>,
        Thibaud Cornic <thibaud_cornic@sigmadesigns.com>
Subject: Re: Tearing down DMA transfer setup after DMA client has finished
Message-ID: <20161209175349.GL6408@localhost>
References: <20161207164341.GX6408@localhost>
 <yw1xr35j1yd5.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
 <20161208103921.GC6408@localhost>
 <91b0d10c-1bc2-c3e1-4088-f4ad9adcd6c0@free.fr>
 <20161208163755.GH6408@localhost>
 <yw1xy3zqxt7x.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
 <20161209065955.GJ6408@localhost>
 <6ce1ea97-1d68-2203-c7b4-73315e801655@laposte.net>
 <20161209171727.GK6408@localhost>
 <yw1xbmwlxba6.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <yw1xbmwlxba6.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1606
Lines: 48

On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 05:28:01PM +0000, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2016 at 11:25:57AM +0100, Sebastian Frias wrote:
> >> 
> >> What concrete solution do you propose?
> >
> > I have already proposed two solutions.
> >
> > A) Request a channel only when you need it. Obviously we can't do virtual
> > channels with this (though we should still use virt-channels framework).
> > The sbox setup and teardown can be done as part of channel request and
> > freeup. PL08x already does this.
> >
> > Downside is that we can only have as many consumers at a time as channels.
> >
> > I have not heard any technical reason for not doing this apart from drivers
> > grab the channel at probe, which is incorrect and needs to be fixed
> > irrespective of the problem at hand.
> >
> > This is my preferred option.
> 
> Sorry, but this is not acceptable.

without outlining why..

> 
> > B) Create a custom driver specific API. This API for example:
> > 	sbox_setup(bool enable, ...)
> > can be called by client to explicitly setup and clear up the sbox setting.
> >
> > This way we can have transactions muxed.
> >
> > I have not heard any arguments on why we shouldn't do this except Russell's
> > comment that A) solves this.
> 
> Driver-specific interfaces are not the solution.  That way lies chaos
> and madness.

Yes fair enough. So would API change which 99% world doesnt need.

> This would all be so much easier if you all would just shut up for a
> moment and let me fix it properly.

Oh please go away, noone is asking you to reply!

-- 
~Vinod