From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vkoul@infradead.org (Vinod Koul) Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:18:35 +0530 Subject: [PATCH V3 2/3] dmaengine: dw_dmac: Enhance device tree support In-Reply-To: References: <3100e691db3f94c22afd98b609a1568d7e70dfe7.1350360935.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <169edae67b9a051ca7448e5b62c3cd2c5c1db470.1350360935.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> Message-ID: <1351241315.7077.16.camel@vkoul-udesk3> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2012-10-26 at 14:25 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On 16 October 2012 09:49, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > dw_dmac driver already supports device tree but it used to have its platform > > data passed the non-DT way. > > > > This patch does following changes: > > - pass platform data via DT, non-DT way still takes precedence if both are used. > > - create generic filter routine > > - Earlier slave information was made available by slave specific filter routines > > in chan->private field. Now, this information would be passed from within dmac > > DT node. Slave drivers would now be required to pass bus_id (a string) as > > parameter to this generic filter(), which would be compared against the slave > > data passed from DT, by the generic filter routine. > > - Update binding document > > I can see that you applied these patches and they are present in > linux-next. But i feel > the order of patches is bad. Yes looks like I forgot to sort the mbox series :( since all patches were applied nicely, and they seem fairly independent of each other it should cause issue. Let me know if you wnat me to redo my -next. -- Vinod Koul Intel Corp.