From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/7] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: program hardware supported buffer length Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:26:47 +0530 Message-ID: <20181002145647.GG19792@vkoul-mobl> References: <20180907062502.8241-1-andrea.merello@gmail.com> <20180907062502.8241-4-andrea.merello@gmail.com> <20180918162508.GD2613@vkoul-mobl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrea Merello Cc: dan.j.williams@intel.com, michal.simek@xilinx.com, appana.durga.rao@xilinx.com, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel , Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , devicetree , Radhey Shyam Pandey List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 28-09-18, 08:53, Andrea Merello wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:25 PM Vinod wrote: > > > @@ -964,7 +968,7 @@ static int xilinx_dma_calc_copysize(struct xilinx_dma_chan *chan, > > > int size, int done) > > > { > > > size_t copy = min_t(size_t, size - done, > > > - XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN); > > > + chan->xdev->max_buffer_len); > > > > hmm why not add max_buffer_len in patch 1 again, and then use default > > len as XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN and add multiple lengths here :) > > Sorry, I'm not getting your point. Could you please elaborate the "add > multiple lengths here" thing ? IIRC (sorry been travelling and vacation), add chan->xdev->max_buffer_len in patch 1 and initialize it to XILINX_DMA_MAX_TRANS_LEN. Then in subsequent patches update the length. -- ~Vinod