Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] dmaengine: xilinx: xdma: Add terminate_all/synchronize callbacks

[Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@bootlin.com>]

Hi Jan,

> >>>> +    vchan_synchronize(&xdma_chan->vchan);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>    /**
> >>>>     * xdma_prep_device_sg - prepare a descriptor for a DMA  
>  tr
> >> ansaction  
> >>>>     * @chan: DMA channel pointer
> >>>> @@ -1088,6 +1154,8 @@ static int xdma_probe(struct platform_device *  
> pd
> >> ev)  
> >>>>        xdev->dma_dev.device_prep_slave_sg =  
>  xdma_prep_device_sg;
> >>>>        xdev->dma_dev.device_config = xdma  
> _de
> >> vice_config;  
> >>>>        xdev->dma_dev.device_issue_pending =  
>  xdma_issue_pending;
> >>>> +    xdev->dma_dev.device_terminate_all = xdma_term  
> in
> >> ate_all;  
> >>>> +    xdev->dma_dev.device_synchronize = xdma_synchr  
> on
> >> ize;  
> >>>>        xdev->dma_dev.filter.map = pdata->  
> dev
> >> ice_map;  
> >>>>        xdev->dma_dev.filter.mapcnt = pdat  
> a->
> >> device_map_cnt;  
> >>>>        xdev->dma_dev.filter.fn = xdma_fil  
> ter
> >> _fn;

Not related, but if you could fix your mailer, it is a bit hard to
track your answers.

> >>
> >> I have already prepared a patch with an appropriate fix, which I'm goi  
> ng to submit with the whole patch series, once I have interleaved DMA tra
> nsfers properly sorted out (hopefully soon). Or maybe should I post this patch with fix, immediately as a reply to the already sent one? What do y
> ou prefer?
> > 
> > I see. Well in the case of cyclic transfers it looks like this is enoug  
> h
> > (I don't have any way to test interleaved/SG transfers) so maybe
> > maintainers can take this now as it is ready and fixes cyclic
> > transfers, so when the interleaved transfers are ready you can
> > improve these functions with a series on top of it?
> >   
> So I decided to base my new patchset on my previous one, as I haven't seen any ack from any maintainer yet on both mine and your patchset. I'm going to submit it this week.

Well, the difference between the two approaches is that I am fixing
something upstream, and you're adding a new feature, which is not
ready yet. I don't mind about using your patch though, I just want
upstream to be fixed.

> This specific commit of yours (PATCH 4/4) basically does the same thing as mine patch, so there will be no difference in its functionality, i.e. it will also fix cyclic transfers.

Thanks,
Miquèl