From: Vitaly W. <vw...@ru...> - 2005-12-01 07:31:28
|
Stephen Street wrote: >On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:36 -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > >>>- it is DMA-safe >>> >>> >>Which as I pointed out is incorrect. The core API (async) has always >>been fully DMA-safe. And a **LOT** lower overhead than yours, which >>allocates buffers behind the back of drivers, and encourages lots of >>memcpy rather than just doing DMA directly to/from the buffers that >>are provided by the SPI protocol drivers. >> >> > >Minimal (or no) core intervention on the DMA code path is a good thing. >I need to fix some broken hardware with software and must to move 96 >bytes from one SPI device to another on the same SPI bus every for 4ms. >Needless memcpy's will cause substantial performance problems in my >application. Thinner is definitely better. > > Oh yep, I must agree with you here, thanks. However, it's not a big thing to change memcpy to spi_memcpy which will copy the data only when necessary. That's what I definitely had been doing but didn't include in the patch sent, oops. :( I'll come up with that shortly. Vitaly |