On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:43:04 Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > >> > I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a >> > plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY. >> >> Other way around. >> > > Ok, I see. In that case I guess it also shouldn't call > dmaengine_slave_config(), right? I don't think that's valid > on a MEMCPY channel. Hmm… That's right, though I suspect still one thing why it's done this way. Let's ask Vinod and Liam about that. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
