On Mon, 04 May 2015, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:33:43PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > Hi Nicholas, > > > > Thank you for the patch. > > > > On Saturday 02 May 2015 09:57:08 Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > > shdma_tx_submit() called via dmaengine_submit() returns the assigned > > > cookie but this is not used here so the variable and assignment can > > > be dropped. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <[email protected]> > > > > I would rephrase the commit message to avoid mentioning shdma_tx_submit() > > as > > that's not relevant. Something like "dmaengine_submit() returns the assigned > > cookie but this is not used here so the variable and assignment can be > > dropped." > And I am bit surrised about taht. Ideally the driver should use the cookie > to check the status later on... > looking at other drivers it seems like the drivers should call dma_submit_error(cookie); on the received cookie - which does: return cookie < 0 ? cookie : 0; but doing that after dmaengine_submit() which actually already queued the this request in shdma_base.cc:shdma_tx_submit() might not be that helpful and looking at dma_cookie_assign() I do not see how the condition that dma_submit_error is checking for ever could occur as it can't go below cookie = DMA_MIN_COOKIE which is defined to 1 (include/linux/dmaengine.h)
As other drivers seem to not be doing more with the returned cookie than calling dma_submit_error() on it this seems ok here ...but I'm not that deep into this - my starting point was a simple API inconsisteny in the use of wait_for_completion_timeout() :) thx! hofrat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
