From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752751Ab2CJLLz (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 06:11:55 -0500 Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-hamburg.de ([134.100.9.70]:50189 "EHLO mailhost.informatik.uni-hamburg.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751695Ab2CJLLy (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Mar 2012 06:11:54 -0500 Message-ID: <4F5B3707.1030504@metafoo.de> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 12:12:07 +0100 From: Lars-Peter Clausen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20120207 Icedove/3.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kuninori Morimoto CC: Vinod Koul , Dan Williams , Russell King , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dmaengine: care sd_dma_address/len in dmaengine_prep_slave_single() References: <8739axwnh9.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <1327917366.1527.42.camel@vkoul-udesk3> <87pqe04qtk.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> <4F58806E.9090500@metafoo.de> <871up2k4o6.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> In-Reply-To: <871up2k4o6.wl%kuninori.morimoto.gx@renesas.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/09/2012 01:18 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: > > Hi Lars > >> On 01/31/2012 02:13 AM, Kuninori Morimoto wrote: >>> dmaengine_prep_slave_single() is helper macro of dmaengine. >>> But it doesn't have sg_dma_address/len() settings which are required. >>> And it used void *buf in parameter, but it should be dma_addr_t. >>> This patch fixes up it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kuninori Morimoto >> >> Hi, >> >> Any news regarding this patch? The dmaengine_prep_slave_single in upstream >> is not really usable as it is right now. > > Sorry. I have no news/update for this. > I'm not good at IOMMU which was pointed by Russell. > > Best regards > --- > Kuninori Morimoto Well, he pointed out a minor and easy to fix flaw with the patch. But if you don't want to resend the patch is it OK for you, if I resend the patch with the flaw fixed? And is it OK, if I keep your Signed-off-by on that patch? Thanks, - Lars