On Tue, 2016-11-08 at 12:22 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote: > On Mon, 2016-11-07 at 15:55 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > + * @only_quirks_used: Only read quirks (like "is_private" or > > > "is_memcpy") from > > > + * platform data structure. Read other parameters from > > > device > > > tree > > > + * node (if exists) or from hardware autoconfig registers. > > > > Can you somehow be more clear that all listed quirks will be copied > > from > > platform data. > > See comment below. > > > > > > > > > * @is_nollp: The device channels does not support multi block > > > transfers. > > > * @chan_allocation_order: Allocate channels starting from 0 or > > > 7 > > > * @chan_priority: Set channel priority increasing from 0 to 7 > > > or > > > 7 > > > to 0. > > > @@ -52,6 +55,7 @@ struct dw_dma_platform_data { > > > unsigned int nr_channels; > > > bool is_private; > > > bool is_memcpy; > > > > > > + bool only_quirks_used; > > > > Perhaps add if at the end of quirk list and name just > > > > > > > > bool is_nollp; > > > > ...here > > > > bool use_quirks; What do think about shorten name? > > I don't treat "is_nollp" as quirks like "is_private" or "is_memcpy". > It is like general pdata field: we can easily read it from autoconfig > registers (and we don't have any problem with that) in case of > pdata/device-tree absence (as opposed to quirks like "is_private" or > "is_memcpy") > > So, in PATCH v3 series "is_nollp" used as regular pdata field. I still would consider is_nollp as a quirk since nothing prevents to override the hardware value (see Intel Quark case). -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Intel Finland Oy -- 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