From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751612AbdJTGIH (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:08:07 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([134.134.136.65]:34342 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751142AbdJTGIG (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Oct 2017 02:08:06 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.43,405,1503385200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="1233040162"
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 11:42:22 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
To: Kuninori Morimoto <kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
Cc: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Niklas =?iso-8859-1?Q?S=F6derlund?= 
        <niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se>,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hiroyuki Yokoyama <hiroyuki.yokoyama.vx@renesas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dmaengine: rcar-dmac: use DMATCRB when xxx_TO_MEM
 direction
Message-ID: <20171020061222.GL30097@localhost>
References: <87d15nmude.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
 <87tvyy7i7o.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
 <87r2u27hx9.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
 <20662392.QIFALme4hY@avalon>
 <87376hjpqz.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87376hjpqz.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 12:01:28AM +0000, Kuninori Morimoto wrote:
> 
> Hi Vinod, Laurent
> 
> > > > Anyway, in all case I can use TCRB in v3 patch,
> > > > and it needs abouve explanation.
> > > 
> > > If so, I think v1 is enough... ?
> > > "transfer completed count is important for all case" is no doubt... ?
> > 
> > That's correct, but I don't think the explanation was detailed and clear 
> > enough. If it was Geert wouldn't have asked for a v2, and you wouldn't have 
> > agreed to his request :-)
> 
> OK. Let's follow Vinod's decision.
> 
> Vinod, I'm happy if you are OK on v1.
> And I'm happy to create v3 patch which includes detail reason
> which is explained by Laurent if you want.

Yes that is correct assumption. Only completed data matters :)

-- 
~Vinod