[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200511213223.GB23852@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 May 2020 22:32:23 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@...kalelectronics.ru>
Cc: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@...kalelectronics.ru>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
Paul Burton <paulburton@...nel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] dmaengine: dw: Print warning if multi-block is
unsupported
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 09:32:47PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. Max segment size being set to the DMA controller generic
> device should work well. There is no need in setting the transfer and messages
> size limitations. Besides I don't really see the
> max_transfer_size/max_message_size callbacks utilized in the SPI core. These
> functions are called in the spi-mem.c driver only. Do I miss something?
We really should validate them in the core but really they're intended
for client drivers (like spi-mem kind of is) to allow them to adapt the
sizes of requests they're generating so the core never sees anything
that's too big. For the transfers we have a spi_split_transfers_maxsize()
helper if anything wants to use it. Fortunately there's not that many
controllers with low enough limits to worry about so actual usage hasn't
been that high.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists