On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:00:41AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > Thank you for the patch. > > On Monday 08 December 2014 11:58:03 Vinod Koul wrote: > > dma_slave_config is expected to be set for slave operations Only, not for > > memcpy ones > > > > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Documentation/dmaengine/provider.txt | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/dmaengine/provider.txt > > b/Documentation/dmaengine/provider.txt index 2c391cfe37eb..e7ea9f87f499 > > 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/dmaengine/provider.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/dmaengine/provider.txt > > @@ -310,6 +310,8 @@ supported. > > - Even though that structure contains a direction field, this > > field is deprecated in favor of the direction argument given to > > the prep_* functions > > + - This call is required for only slave operations only. > > s/is required for only slave operations only/is only required for slave > operations/ ? Yup, reading back this looks terrible > > > + This should NOT be set or expected to be set for memcpy operations > > How about "Drivers that implement memcpy operations don't need to implement > this call." ? It makes it clearer that drivers that support both slave and > memcpy must implement dma_slave_config. That is a problem we want to fix of not having drivers which implement both slave and memcpy rely on dma_slave_config for memcpy operations. Maxime got bitten by that recently so lets fix documentation for this -- ~Vinod -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
