RE: [PATCH V7 0/6] i2c: qup: Add support for v2 tags and bam dma

["Sricharan" <sricharan@codeaurora.org>]

Hi Wolfram,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel-
> bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Wolfram Sang
> Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 5:03 PM
> To: Sricharan
> Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org; architt@codeaurora.org; linux-arm-
> msm@vger.kernel.org; ntelkar@codeaurora.org; agross@codeaurora.org;
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; dmaengine@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> i2c@vger.kernel.org; iivanov@mm-sol.com; galak@codeaurora.org;
> andy.gross@linaro.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 0/6] i2c: qup: Add support for v2 tags and bam dma
> 
> > > Sricharan R (6):
> > >   i2c: qup: Change qup_wait_writeready function to use for all
timeouts
> > >   i2c: qup: Add V2 tags support
> > >   i2c: qup: Transfer each i2c_msg in i2c_msgs without a stop bit
> > >   i2c: qup: Add bam dma capabilities
> > >   dts: msm8974: Add blsp2_bam dma node
> > >   dts: msm8974: Add dma channels for blsp2_i2c1 node
> > >
> >  Wolfram,  Does the first 4 patches looks good to be picked up  ?
> 
> Except for patch 3 (I replied seperately), the rest looks okay to me. I
> wondered a little if it would make sense to make a new driver for v2 +
DMA,
> because the additions were quite massive. But I'll leave it up to you if
there is
> enough shared code between the two versions, so that a single driver will
be
> better.
     Hmm,  addition of V2 reused code, more than 50% addition of new loc in
this series, lot of it from DMA,
     but at this point it feels ok to have it in a single driver. 

Regards,
 Sricharan