On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 10:32:47AM +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 11:47:46AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 02:41:54PM +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. > > > > Okay managed to get this done. Apart from the two issues identified didn't > > find anything so applied and pushed to a branch > > "topic/slave_caps_device_control_fix" > > > > Today did some compile tests and found few warnings, were trivial but I > > am worried about the testing of this code. Has anyone tested this, if so > > which platforms are covered Since I pushed base branch last night, Feng's > > bot covered it and all was OK. Looks like Feng's bot doesn't have wide > > coverage of arm platforms, wasn't there one run by arm guys which tries to > > test and boot, if so can we get this tested there please. > > Tested with your branch on sama5d3 and sama5d4 so at_hdmac and at xdmac. > > I have also sent some patches based on Maxime's series for at_xdmac. Thank You! Anymore voluteers? I am looking at omap, mxs, tegra ones (these had issues) -- ~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
