Hi Rob,
On 19 September 2011 05:37, Clark, Rob rob@ti.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Sumit Semwal sumit.semwal@ti.com wrote:
+struct dma_buf_ops {
void (*attach)(struct dma_buf *, struct device *,struct dma_buf_attachment *);void (*detach)(struct dma_buf *, struct dma_buf_attachment *);struct scatterlist * (*get_scatterlist)(struct dma_buf *,struct dma_buf_attachment*,
enum dma_buf_optype,enum dma_buf_attr_flags);I guess you don't need to pass both 'struct dma_buf' and 'struct dma_buf_attachment'.. the 'struct dma_buf_attachment' can have the 'struct dma_buf' ptr. This somehow seems a bit more logical and cleaner to me.
Thanks, I agree, and will remove it in the next version.
Also, I'm not sure about dma_buf_attr_flags. I think we could add whatever is needed to 'struct device_dma_parameters' (dev->dma_params).
Yes, I think we will leave it for addition-as-and-when-required.
With these changes, I am thinking of publishing out this RFC to the upstream mailing lists - do you all think it's ready, or does it need some more obvious work?
If it is ok, could you all please let me know what all mailing lists should I target? [I have thought of linux-arm-kernel, linux-mm, linux-arch - in addition, linux-media, dri-devel; CC to Arnd and Russell. Any others?]
Best regards, ~Sumit.
BR, -R
void (*put_scatterlist)(struct dma_buf *, structdma_buf_attachment *,
struct scatterlist *);/* allow mmap optionally for devices that need it */int (*mmap)(struct dma_buf *, struct vm_area_struct *);/* after final dma_buf_put() */void (*release)(struct dma_buf *);/* allow allocator to take care of cache ops */void (*sync_sg_for_cpu) (struct dma_buf *, struct device *);void (*sync_sg_for_device)(struct dma_buf *, struct device *);+};