[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150504060346.GB26350@opentech.at>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 08:03:46 +0200
From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at>
To: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Brian Norris <computersforpeace@...il.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mtd: sh_flctl: drop unused variable
On Mon, 04 May 2015, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:33:43PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Nicholas,
> >
> > Thank you for the patch.
> >
> > On Saturday 02 May 2015 09:57:08 Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > shdma_tx_submit() called via dmaengine_submit() returns the assigned
> > > cookie but this is not used here so the variable and assignment can
> > > be dropped.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@...dl.org>
> >
> > I would rephrase the commit message to avoid mentioning shdma_tx_submit() as
> > that's not relevant. Something like "dmaengine_submit() returns the assigned
> > cookie but this is not used here so the variable and assignment can be
> > dropped."
> And I am bit surrised about taht. Ideally the driver should use the cookie
> to check the status later on...
>
looking at other drivers it seems like the drivers should call
dma_submit_error(cookie); on the received cookie - which does:
return cookie < 0 ? cookie : 0;
but doing that after dmaengine_submit() which actually already queued the
this request in shdma_base.cc:shdma_tx_submit() might not be that helpful
and looking at dma_cookie_assign() I do not see how the condition that
dma_submit_error is checking for ever could occur as it can't go below
cookie = DMA_MIN_COOKIE which is defined to 1 (include/linux/dmaengine.h)
As other drivers seem to not be doing more with the returned cookie than
calling dma_submit_error() on it this seems ok here ...but I'm not that
deep into this - my starting point was a simple API inconsisteny in the
use of wait_for_completion_timeout() :)
thx!
hofrat
--
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