From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sekhar Nori Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/14] DMA Engine support for AM33XX Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 10:44:13 +0530 Message-ID: <5100C325.6020102@ti.com> References: <1358281974-8411-1-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <50FEB6B2.5020303@ti.com> <20130123022133.GA5727@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20130123213736.GC5256@beef> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Linux DaVinci Kernel List , Chris Ball , Russell King , Linux Documentation List , Devicetree Discuss , Mark Brown , Linux MMC List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Vinod Koul , Dan Williams , Linux SPI Devel List , Linux OMAP List , Linux ARM Kernel List To: Matt Porter Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130123213736.GC5256@beef> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org Matt, On 1/24/2013 3:07 AM, Matt Porter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:21:42AM +0800, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:26:34PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote: >>> On 1/16/2013 2:02 AM, Matt Porter wrote: >> >>>> This series adds DMA Engine support for AM33xx, which uses >>>> an EDMA DMAC. The EDMA DMAC has been previously supported by only >>>> a private API implementation (much like the situation with OMAP >>>> DMA) found on the DaVinci family of SoCs. >> >>> Will you take this series through the OMAP tree? Only 1/14 touches >>> mach-davinci and I am mostly okay with it except some changes I just >>> requested Matt to make in another thread. >> >> Is this series somewhere near actually getting merged then? It seemed >> like there was lots of stuff going on. > > The issues raised by Sekhar and Santosh were reasonably minor and will > be addressed. My major concern is that the dependency on some api to > fetch dmaengine driver SG limitations is not resolved. That's being > discussed in https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/1/10/432 It might be worth posting the patches which don't have dependencies and are ready for acceptance as a separate series. That way at least some of these patches have a good chance of getting into v3.9 if not the entire series. Thanks, Sekhar