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

Miquel Raynal
2023-12-04T14:36:24Z

Hi Jan,

jankul@alatek.krakow.pl wrote on Mon, 4 Dec 2023 14:13:13 +0100:

> 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.

That would be ideal, unless my series get postponed for any reason.
I believe the maintainers will soon give their feedback, we'll do what
they prefer.

I believe Lizhi will also give a Tested-by -or not-.

> 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?

You can definitely send an individual patchset and just point out that
it applies on top of the few fixes I sent.

> I don't want to wait with submission
> without getting any feedback until your patches are going to be upstreamed.

Of course.

Thanks,
Miquèl