On 18 May 2017 at 22:14, Wolfram Sang <wsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: >> Hi Wolfram, Hi Ulf, Hi Arnd, Hi all, >> >> the intention of this patch-set is to refactor the DMA support in >> the Renesas SDHI driver in order to make it easier to add support >> for using the SDHI hardware with different DMA implementations. >> >> This is based on earlier work, posted as "[PATCH/RFC v3 0/6] mmc: >> renesas_sdhi: add R-Car Gen-3 DMA support". It attempts to implement >> the reworking of the driver proposed by Arnd[1] in his review of that >> patch-set. >> >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg38004.html >> >> Unlike that patch-set this patch-set does not add support for >> R-Car Gen-3 DMA. Rather it focuses on refactoring the code. >> >> Changes between RFC and v2: >> >> * Drop filenames from comment at top of source >> * Consistently check for if (host->dma_ops) before using dma_ops. >> >> >> Simon Horman (6): >> mmc: tmio: drop filenames from comment at top of source >> mmc: renesas-sdhi, tmio: make dma more modular >> mmc: tmio: rename tmio_mmc_{pio => core}.c >> mmc: renesas-sdhi: rename tmio_mmc_dma.c => renesas_sdhi_sys_dmac.c >> mmc: renesas-sdhi: rename sh_mobile_sdhi.c => renesas_sdhi_core.c >> mmc: renesas-sdhi: make renesas_sdhi_sys_dmac main module file > > Thanks Simon for this series! The file layout looks in deed much better > now. And some light testing on my Lager didn't show any regressions. I > have only minor comments which do not have anything to do with the code, > so already here: > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > The comments: > > * MAINTAINERS file needs updating because of the new filenames > * I'd prefer the _GPL variant of EXPORT_SYMBOL unless we have a reason > to not use it? > * maybe this is also a good time to update the Renesas copyrights in > file headers? > * checkpatch reports some whitespace errors on patch 6. I assume they > were already there in the code you moved around. Still, it might be > a nice occasion to fix those? > > Thanks again, nice work! > > Wolfram > I have applied this for next, assuming Simon addresses Wolfram's comments on top. Thanks and kind regards Uffe
