Hi,
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 11:26:57AM +0100, ext Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
we would have a bit of code duplication, no ??
Actually, we shouldn't. The code is just much tangled now but could
be cleanly separated I think.
if it's possible... why not ? Then musb_dma_completion() would call the
other versions of musb_g_[rt]x().
no... if this was caused by a dma irq, request->actuall should be
exactly the same as request->length.
Then why call channel_abort()?
to update request->actual.
We only get dma irq on rx when we program dma for e.g. 64k and we
receive exactly 64k. If we get a short in the middle, we won't see a
dma irq.
You're naive -- we'll get an IRQ of course with e.g. CPPI. :-)
heh, I don't know about all dma engines used with musb that's why the
patches were sent out as rfc.
--
balbi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
