From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/7] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: in axidma slave_sg and dma_cyclic mode align split descriptors Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:28:20 +0530 Message-ID: <20181002145820.GH19792@vkoul-mobl> References: <20180907062502.8241-1-andrea.merello@gmail.com> <20180907062502.8241-2-andrea.merello@gmail.com> <20180918162105.GC2613@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, 09:11, Andrea Merello wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 6:21 PM Vinod wrote: > > > @@ -1804,7 +1817,7 @@ static struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *xilinx_dma_prep_slave_sg( > > > * Calculate the maximum number of bytes to transfer, > > > * making sure it is less than the hw limit > > > */ > > > - copy = xilinx_dma_calc_copysize(sg_dma_len(sg), > > > + copy = xilinx_dma_calc_copysize(chan, sg_dma_len(sg), > > > > why not keep chan in patch 1 and add only handling in patch 2, seems > > less churn to me.. > > Indeed this was something I was unsure about.. I ended up in feeling > better not to add introduce a function that takes an unused (yet) > argument, but I can change this of course :) IMO It is fine to add a user in subsequent patch in a series. Not fine to add something and not use in "that" series :) -- ~Vinod