On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:27:27PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:14:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > but since I'm not turning up anything with this subject line I've no > > idea what that might have been (and that's very concerning in itself > > given that this is apparently v7...). > v4 was here: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/3893371/ > v5: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/5455381/ > v6: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6975871/ > So basically, I really have no idea why, but it really seems like it > was just falling through the cracks, repeatedly (I'm not puting the > blame on anyone though, it just happened). Maybe it was just because > of the lack of comments :) Oh, those subject lines were all starting ARM: rather than spi: - there's a good chance I didn't look at the patches if I was busy thinking they were changes for arch/arm rather than the SPI driver. > > I'm also concerned that there isn't a version of this for sun6i, > > it's going to make all the cut'n'pasting between the two drivers > > harder if we make changes in one and not the other. > I think I'll give reg_field a shot though, and try to merge the sun6i > driver into this one and see the results. If it can help your > decision. It would definitely be nice given the level of duplication. > > If the concern from the previous reviews to do with not using DMA is > > there some reason it's hard to do DMA? > I think just like Alexandru that it is orthogonal. But to really > answer, no, it's not difficult. There's just been some fundamental > disagreement on whether DMA was supposed to be optional or not that > stalled everything I guess. Oh, I seem to remember some patches adding DMA support that were doing some strange special snowflake thing with ignoring errors now that I think about it but that's not this one... why did nobody ever follow up on those?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
