On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 4:56 PM Vinod <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 28-09-18, 08:53, Andrea Merello wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:25 PM Vinod <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > @@ -964,7 +968,7 @@ static int xilinx_dma_calc_copysize(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan,
> > > > int size, int done)
> > > > {
> > > > size_t copy = min_t(size_t, size - done,
> > > > - XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN);
> > > > + chan->xdev->max_buffer_len);
> > >
> > > hmm why not add max_buffer_len in patch 1 again, and then use default
> > > len as XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN and add multiple lengths here :)
> >
> > Sorry, I'm not getting your point. Could you please elaborate the "add
> > multiple lengths here" thing ?
>
> IIRC (sorry been travelling and vacation), add
> chan->xdev->max_buffer_len in patch 1 and initialize it to
> XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN. Then in subsequent patches update the length.
Ah ok. IMO introducing max_buffer_len seems more related to what 4/7
does (actually getting the max transfer len from DT, thus it is not
constant anymore) rather than to what 1/7 does (commonizing the
calculation of transfer len as it is).. This is why I've introduced it
in 4/7..
.. But if you prefer this way, I'll change this :) .. Maybe we can
change 1/7 commit message so that this change looks less off-topic..
But I have not found a very good title yet.. Something like "Prepare
for DMA copy size calculation rework" ?
> --
> ~Vinod
