On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:37:10AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The slave dmaengine semantics required the client to map dma > > addresses and pass DMA address to dmaengine drivers. While this > > was a convenient notion coming from generic dma offload cases > > where dmaengines are interchangeable and client is not aware of > > which engine to map to. > > > > But in case of slave, we know the dmaengine and always use a > > specific one. Further the IOMMU cases can lead to failure of this > > notion, so make this as physical address and now dmaengine driver > > will do the required mapping. > > Thanks a lot! Yes, thanks! > > Original-patch-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> > > You've dropped a few ;-) > > Original-patch-acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> > Original-patch-acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> I'd vote for dropping the "Original-patch-" prefix and keep the original SoB and Acks because the content of the patch is still the same. And while the new commit message is a lot more precise, it is also in the same spirit as the old one. That being said: Acked-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Tested-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> I tested it on my Lager board on top of my sdhi-uhs testing branch and used DMA with SD cards and for I2C transfers. No regressions seen. Also no build warnings. Regards, Wolfram
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
