On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:11:40PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 2:31 AM, Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.fe...@atmel.com> > wrote: > > On 31/05/2013 11:16, Ludovic Desroches : > >> > >> On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:39:36PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> On 18:32 Thu 30 May , Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 30/05/2013 18:08, ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com : > >>>>> > >>>>> From: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> For most devices the FIFO configuration is the same i.e. when half FIFO > >>>>> size is > >>>>> available/filled, a source/destination request is serviced. But USART > >>>>> devices > >>>>> have to do it when there is enough space/data available to perform a > >>>>> single > >>>>> AHB access so the ASAP configuration. > >>>>> > >>>>> Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagn...@jcrosoft.com> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroc...@atmel.com> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Clear and neat: thanks Ludo. > >>> > >>> > >>> agreed > >>> > >>> can we apply this via AT91 as this depends on some cleanup I did on DT > >>> and > >>> could result on some nigthmware conflict > >>> > >> > >> In fact, I am not sure it's the best solution. I have noticed that there > >> is a > >> conflict with a patch sent by Nicolas (dmaengine: at_hdmac: extend > >> hardware > >> handshaking interface identification) which is already in Vinod's tree but > >> which is not present on Jean-Christophe's cleanup tree on which I based > >> these > >> patches. > >> > >> Moreover this patch doesn't use macros introduced by Nicolas' patch. I may > >> update it and it should go through Vinod's tree with a dependence on patch > >> 1/3. > >> > >> What's your point of view? > > > > > > Indeed. Another option could be to push patches 1 and 3 in dmaengine's tree > > and make the 2nd patch go through arm-soc with a dependency on slave-dma GIT > > tree (it seems it is an usual patern). > > > > Arnd, Jean-Christophe, what do you think? > > I'm not sure patch 1 needs to go through the dma-engine tree? Sure, > it's a dma-related header file but it's only used to craft the device > tree in patch 2, it doesn't affect the driver. >
Some macros are used into the at_hdmac driver. Ludovic > (Arnd has comments on the patch that should be resolved though). > > > -Olof _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss