On 24-03-22, 19:38, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 04:48:15AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > Most likely due to a copy-paste mistake the dst_addr member of the
> > dma_slave_config structure has been marked as ignored if the !source!
> > address belong to the memory. That is relevant to the src_addr field of
> > the structure while the dst_addr field as containing a destination device
> > address is supposed to be ignored if the destination is the CPU memory.
> > Let's fix the field description accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> One suggestion below.
>
> > ---
> > include/linux/dmaengine.h | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
> > index 842d4f7ca752..f204ea16ac1c 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
> > @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ enum dma_slave_buswidth {
> > * should be read (RX), if the source is memory this argument is
> > * ignored.
> > * @dst_addr: this is the physical address where DMA slave data
> > - * should be written (TX), if the source is memory this argument
> > + * should be written (TX), if the destination is memory this argument
>
> Should we rename "memory" to "local memory" or something similar?
what do you mean by local memory :)
--
~Vinod
