[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160129043855.GA4608@hector.attlocal.net>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2016 22:38:55 -0600
From: Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>
To: Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
Archit Taneja <architt@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: use correct pipe FIFO size
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 03:18:33PM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
<snip>
> >>> This is just using the #define. That is ok, but if you use this instead of the
> >>> BAM_P_FIFO_SIZES then you need to fix your comment. Or actually use the
> >>> register value.... otherwise looks fine.
> >>
> >> I did not follow your comment, but the intension of the patch is to set
> >> the proper FIFO size in BAM_P_FIFO_SIZES register, i.e. 32K - 8.
> >
> > Sorry, I mixed up the usage and was thinking there was something you read out
> > that told you the size. That's not how it works, unfortunately. The
> > MAX_DATA_SIZE is fine, but the name is a little misleading. Perhaps just
> > BAM_FIFO_SIZE?
>
> OK I can rename BAM_MAX_DATA_SIZE to BAM_FIFO_SIZE, and use it when
> setting BAM_P_FIFO_SIZES register. Is that fine to you?
Yes that's fine with me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists