On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:12:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 24-08-22, 17:07, Serge Semin wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:15:26PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:53:08PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > I've tested this series on Qualcomm SM8450 SoC based dev board. So, > > > > > > Tested-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > Not sure what is the merging strategy for this one but this series should get > > > merged into a single tree. Since the PCI patch is touching the designware > > > driver, merging the series into dmaengine tree might result in conflict later. > > > > Right, the series > > [PATCH v5 00/20] PCI: dwc: Add generic resources and Baikal-T1 support > > is supposed to be merged in first. Then this one will get to be > > applied with no conflicts. That's what I imply in the head of the > > cover-letter. > > I dont see a dependency of dma patches with PCIe patches? I guess they > could go thru the respective trees now..? There is a backward dependency: the PCIe patch in this series depends on the eDMA patches and the patches in the patchset #3. So should you merge the eDMA patches via your tree, the later patch in this series and the patchset #3 would have needed to be applied in there too. So the patches can't be split up between different branches. Seeing all the changes (including the DW eDMA part) concern the PCIe device (DW eDMA is a part of either DW PCIe End-point or Root Port) and we already agreed to merge all the changes via the PCIe tree, I would stick to the previous settled agreement. -Sergey > > -- > ~Vinod
