> -----Original Message----- > From: Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 8:15 PM > To: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Gadiyar, Anand > Subject: [PATCH 06/10] ARM: OMAP: Fix DMA CCR programming for request line > 63 > > From: Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@xxxxxx> > > Bug in existing code causes synchro control to be set +32 if request > line greater than 63 is used. > > Reported by Wenbiao Wang > > Signed-off-by: Anand Gadiyar <gadiyar@xxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c | 5 +---- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c > index 692d2b4..6152586 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dma.c > @@ -279,10 +279,7 @@ void omap_set_dma_transfer_params(int > lch, int data_type, int elem_count, > > val = dma_read(CCR(lch)); > val &= ~(3 << 19); > - if (dma_trigger > 63) > - val |= 1 << 20; > - if (dma_trigger > 31) > - val |= 1 << 19; > + val |= ((dma_trigger & ~(0x1f)) << 14); > > val &= ~(0x1f); > val |= (dma_trigger & 0x1f); > > > Reviewing my own patch. Is it better to use val |= ((dma_trigger & 0x60) << 14) instead? Or is this fine, as is? Thanks, Anand ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
