Hello. On 09/21/2015 02:30 PM, Hamza Farooq wrote:
+#define NR_READS_TO_WAIT (5) /* number of times to check if DE = 0 */Parens not needed. (I'm seeing this patchset for the first time.)
They prevent funny things from happening so I use them all the time.
No, they don't in this case.
First time when I sent the patch-set, I had missed linux-sh mailing list. Here's the link from dmaengine mailing list in case you're interested http://www.spinics.net/lists/dmaengine/msg06103.html
Thanks for the link.
+static inline int rcar_dmac_wait_stop(struct rcar_dmac_chan *chan) +{ + unsigned int i = 0; + + do { + u32 chcr = rcar_dmac_chan_read(chan, RCAR_DMACHCR); + + if (!(chcr & RCAR_DMACHCR_DE)) + return 0; + cpu_relax(); + dev_dbg(chan->chan.device->dev, "DMA xfer couldn't be stopped"); + } while (++i < NR_READS_TO_WAIT);Hm, this can be a *for* loop, no?
Could you explain why would you prefer a for loop here? do..while makes sure even if NR_READS_TO_WAIT is set to 0, the stop action takes place
Hm, this doesn't make sense to me. If # of reads is 0, we shouldn't read, no?
Please don't change the existing indentation, it doesn't seem like you're changing anything else here
ok. How should I send the updates patch though, through replying to this email or a new thread?
New thread I think.
Thanks! Hamza
MBR, Sergei -- 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
