All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
diff for duplicates of <1477076449.6423.14.camel@linux.intel.com>

diff --git a/a/1.txt b/N1/1.txt
index 650f8b2..964568a 100644
--- a/a/1.txt
+++ b/N1/1.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-On Thu, 2016-10-20@13:16 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
-> On Thu, 2016-10-20@13:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
-> > On Thu, 2016-09-15@16:14 +0300, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
+On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 13:16 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
+> On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 13:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
+> > On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 16:14 +0300, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
 > > > 
 > > > This patch is to address a proposal by Andy in this thread:
 > > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/dmaengine/msg10754.html
@@ -12,12 +12,12 @@ On Thu, 2016-10-20@13:16 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:
 
 > > -	if (!chip->pdata) {
 > > > +	if ((!chip->pdata) ||
-> > > +	???(chip->pdata && test_bit(QUIRKS_ONLY_USED, &chip-
+> > > +	   (chip->pdata && test_bit(QUIRKS_ONLY_USED, &chip-
 > > > > pdata-
 > > 
 > > I don't think you need atomic test / set of those bits.
 > 
-> I don't need?atomic bit operations here, I just used standard bit API
+> I don't need atomic bit operations here, I just used standard bit API
 > to make code more clear.
 
 I gave more thoughts to that and I think we would leave boolean
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ defined quirks. Besides that any additional quirk or modification of the
 existing one will produce simple and readable change.
 
 > 
-> > > +		?*/
+> > > +		 */
 > > > +		if (!chip->pdata) {
 > > > +			set_bit(QUIRKS_IS_PRIVATE, &pdata-
 > > > > quirks);
@@ -41,11 +41,11 @@ existing one will produce simple and readable change.
 Ditto.
 
 > > > @@ -1569,7 +1576,7 @@ int dw_dma_probe(struct dw_dma_chip *chip)
-> > > ?				(dwc_params >> DWC_PARAMS_MBLK_EN
+> > >  				(dwc_params >> DWC_PARAMS_MBLK_EN
 > > > &
 > > > 0x1) == 0;
-> > > ?		} else {
-> > > ?			dwc->block_size = pdata->block_size;
+> > >  		} else {
+> > >  			dwc->block_size = pdata->block_size;
 > > > -			dwc->nollp = pdata->is_nollp;
 > > > +			dwc->nollp = test_bit(QUIRKS_IS_NOLLP,
 > > > &pdata->quirks);
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ Ditto.
 > > Perhaps you need another patch which actually moves nollp to dwc-
 > > > flags.
 > 
-> As I can see, we already have?DW_DMA_IS_SOFT_LLP flag in "dwc->flags"
+> As I can see, we already have DW_DMA_IS_SOFT_LLP flag in "dwc->flags"
 > with same functionality, which is set if "dwc->nollp" is true.
 > Probably
 > we can use this flag and get rid of "dwc->nollp".
@@ -67,5 +67,5 @@ CherryView platforms that have a chicken bit to enable / disable the
 feature). So, please, get rid of an additional boolean field.
 
 -- 
-Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com>
+Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 Intel Finland Oy
diff --git a/a/content_digest b/N1/content_digest
index 8c6dc27..efbd09d 100644
--- a/a/content_digest
+++ b/N1/content_digest
@@ -1,15 +1,21 @@
  "ref\01473945253-16649-1-git-send-email-Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com\0"
  "ref\01476960501.3693.19.camel@linux.intel.com\0"
  "ref\01476969404.2882.26.camel@synopsys.com\0"
- "From\0andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com (Andy Shevchenko)\0"
- "Subject\0[PATCH] dmaengine: DW DMAC: split pdata to hardware properties and platform quirks\0"
+ "From\0Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>\0"
+ "Subject\0Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: DW DMAC: split pdata to hardware properties and platform quirks\0"
  "Date\0Fri, 21 Oct 2016 22:00:49 +0300\0"
- "To\0linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org\0"
+ "To\0Eugeniy Paltsev <Eugeniy.Paltsev@synopsys.com>\0"
+ "Cc\0dan.j.williams@intel.com <dan.j.williams@intel.com>"
+  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
+  vireshk@kernel.org <vireshk@kernel.org>
+  vinod.koul@intel.com <vinod.koul@intel.com>
+  linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org <linux-snps-arc@lists.infradead.org>
+ " dmaengine@vger.kernel.org <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>\0"
  "\00:1\0"
  "b\0"
- "On Thu, 2016-10-20@13:16 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:\n"
- "> On Thu, 2016-10-20@13:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:\n"
- "> > On Thu, 2016-09-15@16:14 +0300, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:\n"
+ "On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 13:16 +0000, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:\n"
+ "> On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 13:48 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:\n"
+ "> > On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 16:14 +0300, Eugeniy Paltsev wrote:\n"
  "> > > \n"
  "> > > This patch is to address a proposal by Andy in this thread:\n"
  "> > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/dmaengine/msg10754.html\n"
@@ -21,12 +27,12 @@
  "\n"
  "> > -\tif (!chip->pdata) {\n"
  "> > > +\tif ((!chip->pdata) ||\n"
- "> > > +\t???(chip->pdata && test_bit(QUIRKS_ONLY_USED, &chip-\n"
+ "> > > +\t\302\240\302\240\302\240(chip->pdata && test_bit(QUIRKS_ONLY_USED, &chip-\n"
  "> > > > pdata-\n"
  "> > \n"
  "> > I don't think you need atomic test / set of those bits.\n"
  "> \n"
- "> I don't need?atomic bit operations here, I just used standard bit API\n"
+ "> I don't need\302\240atomic bit operations here, I just used standard bit API\n"
  "> to make code more clear.\n"
  "\n"
  "I gave more thoughts to that and I think we would leave boolean\n"
@@ -35,7 +41,7 @@
  "existing one will produce simple and readable change.\n"
  "\n"
  "> \n"
- "> > > +\t\t?*/\n"
+ "> > > +\t\t\302\240*/\n"
  "> > > +\t\tif (!chip->pdata) {\n"
  "> > > +\t\t\tset_bit(QUIRKS_IS_PRIVATE, &pdata-\n"
  "> > > > quirks);\n"
@@ -50,11 +56,11 @@
  "Ditto.\n"
  "\n"
  "> > > @@ -1569,7 +1576,7 @@ int dw_dma_probe(struct dw_dma_chip *chip)\n"
- "> > > ?\t\t\t\t(dwc_params >> DWC_PARAMS_MBLK_EN\n"
+ "> > > \302\240\t\t\t\t(dwc_params >> DWC_PARAMS_MBLK_EN\n"
  "> > > &\n"
  "> > > 0x1) == 0;\n"
- "> > > ?\t\t} else {\n"
- "> > > ?\t\t\tdwc->block_size = pdata->block_size;\n"
+ "> > > \302\240\t\t} else {\n"
+ "> > > \302\240\t\t\tdwc->block_size = pdata->block_size;\n"
  "> > > -\t\t\tdwc->nollp = pdata->is_nollp;\n"
  "> > > +\t\t\tdwc->nollp = test_bit(QUIRKS_IS_NOLLP,\n"
  "> > > &pdata->quirks);\n"
@@ -62,7 +68,7 @@
  "> > Perhaps you need another patch which actually moves nollp to dwc-\n"
  "> > > flags.\n"
  "> \n"
- "> As I can see, we already have?DW_DMA_IS_SOFT_LLP flag in \"dwc->flags\"\n"
+ "> As I can see, we already have\302\240DW_DMA_IS_SOFT_LLP flag in \"dwc->flags\"\n"
  "> with same functionality, which is set if \"dwc->nollp\" is true.\n"
  "> Probably\n"
  "> we can use this flag and get rid of \"dwc->nollp\".\n"
@@ -76,7 +82,7 @@
  "feature). So, please, get rid of an additional boolean field.\n"
  "\n"
  "-- \n"
- "Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko at linux.intel.com>\n"
+ "Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>\n"
  Intel Finland Oy
 
-847dc4d906e4ee9ad228cb6c8062c2fcb27135d9459bb975a73d6ef0823a5a88
+32986e6f56b7453afaecefb7bf08d2d1ddff95cdf11dedea1446d4e256011d64

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.