On 24-03-22, 19:38, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 04:48:15AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > Most likely due to a copy-paste mistake the dst_addr member of the > > dma_slave_config structure has been marked as ignored if the !source! > > address belong to the memory. That is relevant to the src_addr field of > > the structure while the dst_addr field as containing a destination device > > address is supposed to be ignored if the destination is the CPU memory. > > Let's fix the field description accordingly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > One suggestion below. > > > --- > > include/linux/dmaengine.h | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h > > index 842d4f7ca752..f204ea16ac1c 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h > > +++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h > > @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ enum dma_slave_buswidth { > > * should be read (RX), if the source is memory this argument is > > * ignored. > > * @dst_addr: this is the physical address where DMA slave data > > - * should be written (TX), if the source is memory this argument > > + * should be written (TX), if the destination is memory this argument > > Should we rename "memory" to "local memory" or something similar? what do you mean by local memory :) -- ~Vinod