[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVrNX1lxnM9SKNbJ@shikoro>
Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2021 11:46:07 +0200
From: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
To: Yoshihiro Shimoda <yoshihiro.shimoda.uh@...esas.com>,
Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@...esas.com>
Cc: "linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"alsa-devel@...a-project.org" <alsa-devel@...a-project.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ASoC: sh: rcar: dma: : use proper DMAENGINE API for
termination
Hi Shimoda-san, Morimoto-san,
Thanks for the report and to the testing team!
> I'm afraid but, our test team detected an issue [1] on v5.15-rc2 with m3ulcb and ebusu.
> # Our test team doesn't test this on salvator-xs yet...
> I asked Morimoto-san locally, and he guess that using dmaengine_terminate_async() instead
> of dmaengine_terminate_sync() could be resolved. But, what do you think?
I agree. As I wrote in the original mail, I wasn't too sure about this
change because I don't know the driver well. While I didn't find code
handling an async case, the driver still too complex so that might have
missed some details. This is why the patch was marked RFC. So, I totally
agree to drop this patch and handle the issue the async way. Is it
possible that Morimoto-san takes care of it? I'd think this makes sense
because he knows potential race conditions better than me. If it is not
possible, I will try to have a look.
All the best,
Wolfram
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists