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

Jan Kuliga
2023-12-04T13:13:20Z

Hi Miquel,

On 4.12.2023 12:02, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't notice it. From now on it should be okay.

>>>>
>>>> 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 transfers 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.
>
Okay, so as far as I understand, you'd like me to submit my patchset based on the top of yours.
I guess maintainers will be fine with that (so do I). If so, what is the proper way to post my next
patch series? Should I post it as a reply to your patchset, or as a completely new thread
with a information that it is based on this patchset? I don't want to wait with submission
without getting any feedback until your patches are going to be upstreamed.

> Thanks, MiquèlThanks,
Jan