From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vinod.koul@intel.com (Vinod Koul) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 16:55:29 +0530 Subject: [PATCH v4 00/58] dmaengine: Implement generic slave capabilities retrieval In-Reply-To: <20141106143349.GL2989@lukather> References: <1414531573-18807-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20141106143349.GL2989@lukather> Message-ID: <20141112112529.GK24582@intel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi Vinod, > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:25:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third attempt at > > creating a generic behaviour for slave capabilities retrieval so that > > generic layers using dmaengine can actually rely on that. > > > > That has been done mostly through two steps: by moving out the > > sub-commands of the device_control callback, so that the dmaengine > > core can then infer from that wether a sub-command is implemented, and > > then by moving the slave properties, such as the supported buswidth, > > to the structure dma_device itself. > > > > Comments are as usual appreciated! > > How can we move forward on this? > > I didn't have any comments on this version, and gathered quite a lot > of Acked-by already. > > Do you want me to rebase on top of your current next branch and send > you a pull request? Hi Maxime, Thanks for the huge cleanup work I quickly looked thru the series and looks okay. I will do a detailed review in next couple of days and then host it on a topic branch so that Feng's robot can test it before merging it. Thanks -- ~Vinod -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: