On Wed, 2012-12-19 at 11:12 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
I am not sure if I have missed your pull request, but wanted to see if
you had or were going to send a pull request for the DT changes for
v3.8? I believe that the merge window ends this week.
Not yet sent. I was waiting on Dan's changes,
Hi Vinod,
On 11/15/2012 07:37 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:01 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
Hi Vinod,
A few people have been asking me if getting device-tree support for DMA
engine is plan for record for v3.8. I know that you were working through
implementing a common interface
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 09:45 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
Thanks, Vinod. Can you make sure you also pick up the two fixes [1][2]
I sent out?
Cheers
Jon
[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omapm=134859981920598w=2
[2] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omapm=134998461526129w=2
Applied both and merged
On 11/16/2012 02:37 AM, Vinod Koul :
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:01 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
Hi Vinod,
A few people have been asking me if getting device-tree support for DMA
engine is plan for record for v3.8. I know that you were working through
implementing a common interface and so I wanted
On 11/15/2012 07:37 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:01 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
Hi Vinod,
A few people have been asking me if getting device-tree support for DMA
engine is plan for record for v3.8. I know that you were working through
implementing a common interface and so I
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:01 -0600, Jon Hunter wrote:
Hi Vinod,
A few people have been asking me if getting device-tree support for DMA
engine is plan for record for v3.8. I know that you were working through
implementing a common interface and so I wanted to check how that is
going. Do you
On 10/15/2012 09:39 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:43 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:05:01AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:25 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
For DT bindings, I think the binding itself shouldn't change based on my
work but I
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:05:01AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:25 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
For DT bindings, I think the binding itself shouldn't change based on my
work but I would like these same bindings to help build the DMA engine
code mappings.
Now would
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 10:43 +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 10:05:01AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:25 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
For DT bindings, I think the binding itself shouldn't change based on my
work but I would like these same bindings to help
Hi Vinod,
On 09/17/2012 10:13 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 23:36 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I believe that Jon is on vacation this week, so if this is the only issue
holding up the merge, maybe you can change this in his patch directly, or
I can send an updated
On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 17:25 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
For DT bindings, I think the binding itself shouldn't change based on my
work but I would like these same bindings to help build the DMA engine
code mappings.
Now would it make sense to NOT merge these changes for 3.7 and postpone
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:43:55AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 23:36 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I believe that Jon is on vacation this week, so if this is the only issue
holding up the merge, maybe you can change this in his patch directly, or
I can
On Tuesday 18 September 2012, Matt Porter wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 08:43:55AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
Now would it make sense to NOT merge these changes for 3.7 and postpone
to 3.8. I can host these patches on a topic branch and merge them when
we are ready. I plan to spend some
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:20:08PM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2012, Matt Porter wrote:
FWIW, I'm already basing the EDMA dmaengine support for OMAP (specifically
for AM335x) on using these helpers since AM335x only boots from DT.
I suspect the same thing will be
On Monday 17 September 2012, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 17:41 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
+/**
+ * dma_request_slave_channel - try to allocate an exclusive slave
channel
+ * @dev: pointer to client device structure
+ * @name: slave channel name
+ */
+struct
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:59:27AM +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 17 September 2012, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 17:41 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
+/**
+ * dma_request_slave_channel - try to allocate an exclusive slave
channel
+ * @dev: pointer to client device
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 11:59 +, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Monday 17 September 2012, Vinod Koul wrote:
I believe that Jon is on vacation this week, so if this is the only issue
holding up the merge, maybe you can change this in his patch directly, or
I can send an updated version if you
On Mon, 2012-09-17 at 23:36 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
I believe that Jon is on vacation this week, so if this is the only issue
holding up the merge, maybe you can change this in his patch directly, or
I can send an updated version if you prefer.
I worry that too much is
On Fri, 2012-09-14 at 17:41 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
+/**
+ * dma_request_slave_channel - try to allocate an exclusive slave
channel
+ * @dev: pointer to client device structure
+ * @name: slave channel name
+ */
+struct dma_chan *dma_request_slave_channel(struct device *dev,
Currently slave DMA channels are requested by calling dma_request_channel()
and requires DMA clients to pass various filter parameters to obtain the
appropriate channel.
With device-tree being used by architectures such as arm and the addition of
device-tree helper functions to extract the
20 matches
Mail list logo
