Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 13 Jul 2020 12:21:31 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 05/11] dmaengine: Introduce DMA-device device_caps
 callback
Message-ID: <20200713065131.GG34333@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200709224550.15539-1-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
 <20200709224550.15539-6-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
 <20200710084503.GE3703480@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20200710093834.su3nsjesnhntpd6d@mobilestation>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200710093834.su3nsjesnhntpd6d@mobilestation>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10-07-20, 12:38, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:45:03AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 01:45:44AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > There are DMA devices (like ours version of Synopsys DW DMAC) which have
> > > DMA capabilities non-uniformly redistributed between the device channels.
> > > In order to provide a way of exposing the channel-specific parameters to
> > > the DMA engine consumers, we introduce a new DMA-device callback. In case
> > > if provided it gets called from the dma_get_slave_caps() method and is
> > > able to override the generic DMA-device capabilities.
> > 
> 
> > In light of recent developments consider not to add 'slave' and a such words to the kernel.
> 
> As long as the 'slave' word is used in the name of the dma_slave_caps
> structure and in the rest of the DMA-engine subsystem, it will be ambiguous
> to use some else terminology. If renaming needs to be done, then it should be
> done synchronously for the whole subsystem.

Right, I have plans to tackle that during next merge window and have
started changes. Thankfully slave_dma can be replaced by peripheral dma
easily. But getting that in would be tricky as we need to change users
too.

-- 
~Vinod