On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:25:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third attempt at > > creating a generic behaviour for slave capabilities retrieval so that > > generic layers using dmaengine can actually rely on that. > > > > That has been done mostly through two steps: by moving out the > > sub-commands of the device_control callback, so that the dmaengine > > core can then infer from that wether a sub-command is implemented, and > > then by moving the slave properties, such as the supported buswidth, > > to the structure dma_device itself. > > > > Comments are as usual appreciated! > > How can we move forward on this? > > I didn't have any comments on this version, and gathered quite a lot > of Acked-by already. > > Do you want me to rebase on top of your current next branch and send > you a pull request? Hi Maxime, Thanks for the huge cleanup work I quickly looked thru the series and looks okay. I will do a detailed review in next couple of days and then host it on a topic branch so that Feng's robot can test it before merging it. Thanks -- ~Vinod
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
