Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1239664 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v9] dmaengine: Add Xilinx AXI Direct Memory Access Engine driver support

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v9] dmaengine: Add Xilinx AXI Direct Memory Access Engine  driver support Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> - 2015-10-05 17:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v9] dmaengine: Add Xilinx AXI Direct Memory Access Engine  driver support Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> - 2015-10-06 09:50 +0200

#1239664 — Re: [PATCH v9] dmaengine: Add Xilinx AXI Direct Memory Access Engine driver support

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:41:06PM +0530, Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
> This is the driver for the AXI Direct Memory Access (AXI DMA)
> core, which is a soft Xilinx IP core that provides high-
> bandwidth direct memory access between memory and AXI4-Stream
> type target peripherals.

Okay reviewing this after the other Xilinx driver with very similar name, I
am very concerned about code duplication. Both codes seems to be pretty much
copy paste and some modifications for IP. In Linux kernel we reuse!

Please create common lib for Xilinx drivers to use and
have HW diff is two drivers, or manage those with different driver ops

Pls justify why we should have two drivers. Looking at code makes me think
otherwise

-- 
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1240219

On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 03:48:39PM +0000, Appana Durga Kedareswara Rao wrote:
> > Pls justify why we should have two drivers. Looking at code makes me think
> > otherwise
> 
>
[pls wrap your messages within 80 chars, I have reflowed below]
 
> I agree with you and even initially we had a common driver with the
> similar implementation as you were mentioning.  Later on, being soft IPs,
> new features were added and the IPs became diversified. As an example,
> this driver has a residue Calculation whereas the other driver (VDMA) is
> not applicable and the way interrupts are handled is completely different.
> Briefly, they are two complete different IPs with a different register set
> and descriptor format. Eventually, it became too complex To manage the
> common driver as the code became messy with lot of conditions around.
> Mainly the validation process is a big concern, as every change In the IP
> compels to test all the complete features of both IPs.  So, we got
> convinced to the approach of separating the drivers to overcome this and
> it comes with Few addition lines of common code.

No it is not that hard, bunch of people already do that.

You need is a smart probe or perhaps invoke IP specfic method to
initialize dma controller.

In above case no one forces you to register status callback for both, you
can do based on the controller probed...

I am sorry but validation is not a strong point here. I have a driver which
manages bunch of different generations. Reuse helps in having lesser code
and bug fixes across generations easily..

We cant have two drivers pretty much doing same thing in kernel

Please fix this and come back

-- 
~Vinod
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web