Hi Miquel, On 4.12.2023 12:02, Miquel Raynal wrote: > 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. > Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't notice it. From now on it should be okay. >>>> >>>> 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 transfers 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. > Okay, so as far as I understand, you'd like me to submit my patchset based on the top of yours. I guess maintainers will be fine with that (so do I). If so, what is the proper way to post my next patch series? Should I post it as a reply to your patchset, or as a completely new thread with a information that it is based on this patchset? I don't want to wait with submission without getting any feedback until your patches are going to be upstreamed. > Thanks, MiquèlThanks, Jan
