On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 01:31:04PM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:37:10AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Hi Vinod, > > > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma > > > addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this > > > was a convenient notion coming from generic dma offload cases > > > where dmaengines are interchangeable and client is not aware of > > > which engine to map to. > > > > > > But in case of slave, we know the dmaengine and always use a > > > specific one. Further the IOMMU cases can lead to failure of this > > > notion, so make this as physical address and now dmaengine driver > > > will do the required mapping. > > > > Thanks a lot! > > Yes, thanks! > > > > Original-patch-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > You've dropped a few ;-) > > > > Original-patch-acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Original-patch-acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > > I'd vote for dropping the "Original-patch-" prefix and keep the original > SoB and Acks because the content of the patch is still the same. And > while the new commit message is a lot more precise, it is also in the > same spirit as the old one. > > That being said: > > Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I tested it on my Lager board on top of my sdhi-uhs testing branch and > used DMA with SD cards and for I2C transfers. No regressions seen. Also > no build warnings. I did check build warnings and pushed this out, Feng's bot didn't complain so was more concerned about testing, so thanks for getting that done. -- ~Vinod
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
