Hi Jan, > >>>> + vchan_synchronize(&xdma_chan->vchan); > >>>> +} > >>>> + > >>>> /** > >>>> * xdma_prep_device_sg - prepare a descriptor for a DMA > tr > >> ansaction > >>>> * @chan: DMA channel pointer > >>>> @@ -1088,6 +1154,8 @@ static int xdma_probe(struct platform_device * > pd > >> ev) > >>>> xdev->dma_dev.device_prep_slave_sg = > xdma_prep_device_sg; > >>>> xdev->dma_dev.device_config = xdma > _de > >> vice_config; > >>>> xdev->dma_dev.device_issue_pending = > xdma_issue_pending; > >>>> + xdev->dma_dev.device_terminate_all = xdma_term > in > >> ate_all; > >>>> + xdev->dma_dev.device_synchronize = xdma_synchr > on > >> ize; > >>>> xdev->dma_dev.filter.map = pdata-> > dev > >> ice_map; > >>>> xdev->dma_dev.filter.mapcnt = pdat > a-> > >> device_map_cnt; > >>>> xdev->dma_dev.filter.fn = xdma_fil > ter > >> _fn; Not related, but if you could fix your mailer, it is a bit hard to track your answers. > >> > >> I have already prepared a patch with an appropriate fix, which I'm goi > ng to submit with the whole patch series, once I have interleaved DMA tra > nsfers properly sorted out (hopefully soon). Or maybe should I post this patch with fix, immediately as a reply to the already sent one? What do y > ou prefer? > > > > I see. Well in the case of cyclic transfers it looks like this is enoug > h > > (I don't have any way to test interleaved/SG transfers) so maybe > > maintainers can take this now as it is ready and fixes cyclic > > transfers, so when the interleaved transfers are ready you can > > improve these functions with a series on top of it? > > > So I decided to base my new patchset on my previous one, as I haven't seen any ack from any maintainer yet on both mine and your patchset. I'm going to submit it this week. Well, the difference between the two approaches is that I am fixing something upstream, and you're adding a new feature, which is not ready yet. I don't mind about using your patch though, I just want upstream to be fixed. > This specific commit of yours (PATCH 4/4) basically does the same thing as mine patch, so there will be no difference in its functionality, i.e. it will also fix cyclic transfers. Thanks, Miquèl
