Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 00/24] dmaengine: dw-edma: Add RP/EP local DMA controllers support

Vinod Koul
2022-08-25T08:44:49Z

On 25-08-22, 08:04, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:12:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On 24-08-22, 17:07, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:15:26PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:53:08PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> >
> > > > I've tested this series on Qualcomm SM8450 SoC based dev board. So,
> > > >
> > > > Tested-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > > Not sure what is the merging strategy for this one but this series should get
> > > > merged into a single tree. Since the PCI patch is touching the designware
> > > > driver, merging the series into dmaengine tree might result in conflict later.
> > >
> > > Right, the series
> > > [PATCH v5 00/20] PCI: dwc: Add generic resources and Baikal-T1 support
> > > is supposed to be merged in first. Then this one will get to be
> > > applied with no conflicts. That's what I imply in the head of the
> > > cover-letter.
> >
>
> > I dont see a dependency of dma patches with PCIe patches? I guess they
> > could go thru the respective trees now..?
>
> There is a backward dependency: the PCIe patch in this series depends
> on the eDMA patches and the patches in the patchset #3. So should you

What is the dependency...? Looking at the patches there does not seem to
be one...

> merge the eDMA patches via your tree, the later patch in this series
> and the patchset #3 would have needed to be applied in there too. So
> the patches can't be split up between different branches. Seeing all
> the changes (including the DW eDMA part) concern the PCIe device (DW
> eDMA is a part of either DW PCIe End-point or Root Port) and we
> already agreed to merge all the changes via the PCIe tree, I would
> stick to the previous settled agreement.
>
> -Sergey
>
> >
> > --
> > ~Vinod

--
~Vinod