Hello Vinod
On 02/13/2017 07:22 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:30:19PM +0900, Jiada Wang wrote:
+static int sdma_disable_channel_with_delay(struct dma_chan *chan)
+{
+ sdma_disable_channel(chan);
+ mdelay(1);
what is the gaurantee that 1ms is fine? Shouldn't you
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 03:30:19PM +0900, Jiada Wang wrote:
> >>+static int sdma_disable_channel_with_delay(struct dma_chan *chan)
> >>+{
> >>+ sdma_disable_channel(chan);
> >>+ mdelay(1);
> >
> >what is the gaurantee that 1ms is fine? Shouldn't you poll the bit to see
> >channel is disabled pr
Hello Vinod
On 02/13/2017 11:05 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:46:45AM -0800, jiada_w...@mentor.com wrote:
From: Jiada Wang
sdma_disable_channel() cannot ensure dma is stopped to access
module's FIFOs. Maybe SDMA core is running and accessing BD when
disable of corresponding
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 06:46:45AM -0800, jiada_w...@mentor.com wrote:
> From: Jiada Wang
>
> sdma_disable_channel() cannot ensure dma is stopped to access
> module's FIFOs. Maybe SDMA core is running and accessing BD when
> disable of corresponding channel, this may cause sometimes even
> after
From: Jiada Wang
sdma_disable_channel() cannot ensure dma is stopped to access
module's FIFOs. Maybe SDMA core is running and accessing BD when
disable of corresponding channel, this may cause sometimes even
after call of .sdma_disable_channel(), SDMA core still be running
and accessing module's
5 matches
Mail list logo