From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Koul Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dmaengine: tegra210-adma: Add memcpy support Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:08:55 +0530 Message-ID: <20160914133855.GJ13920@localhost> References: <37d4645c-6318-78bd-79bb-844fb6764a1b@nvidia.com> <20160908173141.GA28381@Asurada-Nvidia> <20160912205017.GA12187@Asurada-Nvidia> <0a0d5875-eb10-d98b-c26b-52fcb13b2be0@nvidia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0a0d5875-eb10-d98b-c26b-52fcb13b2be0-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Jon Hunter Cc: Nicolin Chen , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dmaengine-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, gnurou-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, thierry.reding-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, swarren-3lzwWm7+Weoh9ZMKESR00Q@public.gmane.org, ldewangan-DDmLM1+adcrQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 09:52:43AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > On 12/09/16 21:50, Nicolin Chen wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 03:34:08PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > > >>> Sorry. I forgot to mention that the TEGRA210_CLK_APE_SLCG_OVR > >>> clock is required for the tests. So I cherry-picked 2 patches > >>> from your audio branch to the linux-next: > >>> clk: tegra210: Add SLCG override gate clocks > >>> ARM64: tegra: DT: Add SLCG clock for AUD > > > >>> And it seems that you've submitted that patch once but it got > >>> hold because it wasn't so useful at that time? > > > >> Yes it was not being used at the time. It is on my list of things to do > >> and we need to revisit it. There was some discussion on the best way to > >> handle these clocks from a client perspective. I am not sure we came to > >> a conclusion on this. I need to find some time to look at this. > > > > I may also take a look to speed it up. Yet, putting that clock > > aside, how about this patch then? I think we don't need to wait > > for that clock patch in order to announce that we support this > > now on a specific SoC but can just treat it as a new feature of > > a DMA controller, which sounds quite plausible to me since the > > ADMA module is now being disabled in all dts files of existing > > SoCs -- There have to be some local changes in any way so as to > > test it with the mainline code. > > I am fine with the changes. However, I am wondering if we should sort > out this clock business first just in case someone tries to use this. I think that is better, so am dropping this series. -- ~Vinod