On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 02:15:02PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 04:55:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > Hi Vinod,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:25:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > >
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 04:55:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Vinod,
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:25:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third att
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:33:49PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi Vinod,
>
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:25:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third attempt at
> > creating a generic behaviour for slave capabilities retrieval so th
Hi Vinod,
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 10:25:15PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third attempt at
> creating a generic behaviour for slave capabilities retrieval so that
> generic layers using dmaengine can actually rely on that.
>
> That has
Hi,
As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, this is the third attempt at
creating a generic behaviour for slave capabilities retrieval so that
generic layers using dmaengine can actually rely on that.
That has been done mostly through two steps: by moving out the
sub-commands of the device_control
5 matches
Mail list logo