On Wed, Dec 18, 2024 at 03:38:38PM +0200, 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?
You should move these fixes patch to first patch in this serise! So greg
can backport these fixes patches to old kernel easily.
Frank
>
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Krzysztof
>
> Regards,
> Larisa
