On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 10:50:30AM +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > > > > only thing here wer are saving and restoring from save_cc. How does that > > > > impact rest of the code above? > > this part is the only one which is clear. I think right way would be to > > split these changes and explain in each one why we are doing them. Down > > the line when someone is working on this will know precisely why this change > > was made. Two years is a long time, even we will forget. So good changelog > > and splitting patches to do just one thing is very helpful > > I don't see why this patch should be split. The goal is to remove the > configuration register snapshot and to put it in the lli descriptor. > Because I am removing this snapshot, I have to update suspend/resume and > the way I have chosen is to directly get the value from the hardware > register. If it is a blocking point I'll split it. I think you want me > to put the addition of the save_cc field into another patches but I have > no reason to do it before patch 2 since I have not encountered any bug > yet (even if I think it is safer). And if I don't do it in patch 2, > suspend/resume will be broken. cant the save cc bits come first and then rest of contents in this patch > > > About the commit message I could elaborate a bit more: > > This patch simplifies the channel configuration register management. > Relying on a "software snapshot" of the configuration is not safe and > too complex. > > Multiple dwidths will be introduced for slave transfers. In this case, > it becomes quite difficult to have an accurate snapshot of the channel > configuration register in the way it is done. Using the channel > configuration available in the lli descriptor simplifies this stuff. much better :) -- ~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
