Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Serge Semin
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 05:39:04PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:02:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Serge Semin > > > > Let's leave the patch as is. > > > Mark, should I send a partial revert afterwards in this case? > > I'm not fully

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:39 PM Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:02:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Serge Semin > > > > Let's leave the patch as is. > > > Mark, should I send a partial revert afterwards in this case? > > I'm not fully satisfied

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 07:02:32PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Serge Semin > > Let's leave the patch as is. > Mark, should I send a partial revert afterwards in this case? > I'm not fully satisfied with it. That might be a suitable way to keep the peace here.

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Serge Semin wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:51:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:28PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > > Well, for me both solutions are equal except mine consumes less stack > > > memory. > > > The only reason why

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Serge Semin
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 04:51:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:28PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > Well, for me both solutions are equal except mine consumes less stack > > memory. > > The only reason why your solution might be better is that if DW DMA driver > > or

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 6:51 PM Mark Brown wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:28PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > Well, for me both solutions are equal except mine consumes less stack > > memory. > > The only reason why your solution might be better is that if DW DMA driver > > or > > the D

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Mark Brown
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 03:12:28PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > Well, for me both solutions are equal except mine consumes less stack memory. > The only reason why your solution might be better is that if DW DMA driver or > the DMA engine subsystem changed the dw_dma_slave structure instance passed

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Serge Semin wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 12:57:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:23 AM Serge Semin > > wrote: ... > > Thanks for an update, but that's not what I asked for... > > > > > -static struct dw_dma_slave mid_dma_tx = {

Re: [PATCH v3 03/16] spi: dw: Discard static DW DMA slave structures

2020-05-21 Thread Andy Shevchenko
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 4:23 AM Serge Semin wrote: > > Having them declared is redundant since each struct dw_dma_chan has > the same structure embedded and the structure from the passed dma_chan > private pointer will be copied there as a result of the next calls > chain: > dma_request_channel()