On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 09:59 +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 15 November 2012 23:28, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Viresh Kumar <viresh.ku...@linaro.org> > > wrote: > >> On 15 November 2012 20:57, Andy Shevchenko > >> <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote: > >>> Well, the prep_* should assign the value due to changes of check in the > >>> dwc_descriptor_complete. Otherwise we will potentially skip some > >>> important piece of code. > >> > >> What i meant to say was, set_runtime_config() must have already done this > >> part. > > > > On one hand it is true. On the other - *_prep* functions use > > explicitly passed parameter. I doubt there is a consistency between > > value in slave config passed via dwc_control and value passed as > > explicit function parameter. > > I believe it should be consistent. > > @Vinod: Why have we duplicated direction? Once in prep_* and then in > slave_config?
Documentation and TODO list say that slave_config.direction is kinda deprecated. > > -- > viresh -- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
