Hi, On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 04:55:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > 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. I know that it will break, because of the Atmel's XDMAC driver that has been merged since. This is why I mentionned rebasing it ;) FWIW, the branch I was using for this serie has been published like 3 weeks ago, and my git repo is built by Feng's bot, so there shouldn't be any compiling issues. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
