[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1353069475.11158.356.camel@smile>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:37:55 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
spear-devel <spear-devel@...t.st.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dw_dmac: make usage of dw_dma_slave optional
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 09:59 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 15 November 2012 23:28, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> >> On 15 November 2012 20:57, Andy Shevchenko
> >> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>> Well, the prep_* should assign the value due to changes of check in the
> >>> dwc_descriptor_complete. Otherwise we will potentially skip some
> >>> important piece of code.
> >>
> >> What i meant to say was, set_runtime_config() must have already done this part.
> >
> > On one hand it is true. On the other - *_prep* functions use
> > explicitly passed parameter. I doubt there is a consistency between
> > value in slave config passed via dwc_control and value passed as
> > explicit function parameter.
>
> I believe it should be consistent.
>
> @Vinod: Why have we duplicated direction? Once in prep_* and then in
> slave_config?
Documentation and TODO list say that slave_config.direction is kinda
deprecated.
>
> --
> viresh
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists