On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 10:30:07AM +0200, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On 18 May 2017 at 22:14, Wolfram Sang <w...@the-dreams.de> wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:25:24AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > >> Hi Wolfram, Hi Ulf, Hi Arnd, Hi all, > >> > >> the intention of this patch-set is to refactor the DMA support in > >> the Renesas SDHI driver in order to make it easier to add support > >> for using the SDHI hardware with different DMA implementations. > >> > >> This is based on earlier work, posted as "[PATCH/RFC v3 0/6] mmc: > >> renesas_sdhi: add R-Car Gen-3 DMA support". It attempts to implement > >> the reworking of the driver proposed by Arnd[1] in his review of that > >> patch-set. > >> > >> [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-mmc/msg38004.html > >> > >> Unlike that patch-set this patch-set does not add support for > >> R-Car Gen-3 DMA. Rather it focuses on refactoring the code. > >> > >> Changes between RFC and v2: > >> > >> * Drop filenames from comment at top of source > >> * Consistently check for if (host->dma_ops) before using dma_ops. > >> > >> > >> Simon Horman (6): > >> mmc: tmio: drop filenames from comment at top of source > >> mmc: renesas-sdhi, tmio: make dma more modular > >> mmc: tmio: rename tmio_mmc_{pio => core}.c > >> mmc: renesas-sdhi: rename tmio_mmc_dma.c => renesas_sdhi_sys_dmac.c > >> mmc: renesas-sdhi: rename sh_mobile_sdhi.c => renesas_sdhi_core.c > >> mmc: renesas-sdhi: make renesas_sdhi_sys_dmac main module file > > > > Thanks Simon for this series! The file layout looks in deed much better > > now. And some light testing on my Lager didn't show any regressions. I > > have only minor comments which do not have anything to do with the code, > > so already here: > > > > Reviewed-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+rene...@sang-engineering.com> > > > > The comments: > > > > * MAINTAINERS file needs updating because of the new filenames > > * I'd prefer the _GPL variant of EXPORT_SYMBOL unless we have a reason > > to not use it? > > * maybe this is also a good time to update the Renesas copyrights in > > file headers? > > * checkpatch reports some whitespace errors on patch 6. I assume they > > were already there in the code you moved around. Still, it might be > > a nice occasion to fix those? > > > > Thanks again, nice work! > > > > Wolfram > > > > I have applied this for next, assuming Simon addresses Wolfram's > comments on top.
Thanks a lot! I will follow-up on Wolfram's comments.
