On 18/12/2024 14:38, Larisa Ileana Grigore wrote:
> On 12/18/2024 3:32 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 18/12/2024 14:24, Larisa Ileana Grigore wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for you review Krzysztof! Indeed, this commit should be moved
>>>>> right after "dmaengine: fsl-edma: add eDMAv3 registers to edma_regs"
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand this. Are you saying you introduce bug in one patch
>>>> and fix in other? Why this cannot be separate patchset?
>>>
>>> The bug was introduced by 72f5801a4e2b7 ("dmaengine: fsl-edma: integrate
>>> v3 support"), commit which is already upstream.
>>>
>>> In the proposed fix, a channel is disabled after checking the HRS
>>> register which is a eDMAv3 specific register.
>>>
>>> In the upstream implementation, "struct edma_regs" is created based on
>>> the eDMAv2 register layout [1] which is different compared to the eDMAv3
>>> register layout.
>>> The "hrs" field, which is used to access the HRS register, was
>>> introduced in one of the patches from this set [2].
>>> So, this fix depends on two other commits:
>>> "dmaengine: fsl-edma: add eDMAv3 registers to edma_regs" [2]
>>> "dmaengine: fsl-edma: move eDMAv2 related registers to a new structure
>>> ’edma2_regs’" [3]
>>
>> OK, this explains the problem. Your fix cannot depend on other patches.
>
> Should I remove the "Fixes" tag in this case?
No, you should rather rework the patches so the fix is independent and
can be submitted separately.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
