On 12/4/23 06:36, Miquel Raynal wrote:
Hi Jan,
jankul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:13:13 +0100:
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.
That would be ideal, unless my series get postponed for any reason.
I believe the maintainers will soon give their feedback, we'll do what
they prefer.
I believe Lizhi will also give a Tested-by -or not-.
Yes, I verified this patch set for sg list test and it passed.
Tested-by: Lizhi Hou <lizhi.hou@xxxxxxx>
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?
You can definitely send an individual patchset and just point out that
it applies on top of the few fixes I sent.
I don't want to wait with submission
without getting any feedback until your patches are going to be upstreamed.
Of course.
Thanks,
Miquèl
