Re: [PATCH v21 06/14] dmaengine: qcom: bam_dma: add support for BAM locking

[Stephan Gerhold <stephan.gerhold@linaro.org>]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:43:04AM -0700, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2026 18:06:27 +0200, Stephan Gerhold
> <stephan.gerhold@linaro.org> said:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2026 at 09:06:46PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> >> On 15-07-26, 14:43, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:49:14 +0200, Stephan Gerhold
> >
> 
> ...
> 
> > I would avoid using struct dma_slave_config->dst_addr (like in v11) [1]
> > though, since it's more a "address to dummy register" now than the
> > actual dst_addr of the peripheral. That's why I suggested
> > struct dma_slave_config->peripheral_config.
> 
> As in:
> 
> struct bam_dma_peripheral_config {
> 	phys_addr_t scratchpad_addr;
> };
> 
> struct dma_slave_config cfg = { .peripheral_config = &scratchpad_addr };
> 
> ?
> 

I think you have the same thought in mind, but there are a little bit
too many odd typos in your example to give you a simple "yes". :-)
(Why assign &scratchpad_addr to .peripheral_config and not the struct?)

While at it, perhaps we could rename scratchpad_addr to have something
with "lock" in the name, to make it clearer what it is used for?
(lock_scratchpad_addr? lock_dummy_register? lock_scratch_register?)

Thanks,
Stephan