[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKohpokuGtgz6ohBPR9m0rnu0vhsyi7ywBvfWkSGSps5=PnYEA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 09:59:06 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.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 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?
--
viresh
--
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