Messages in this thread | | | From | "Sricharan" <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH V7 0/6] i2c: qup: Add support for v2 tags and bam dma | Date | Thu, 28 Jan 2016 10:57:51 +0530 |
| |
Hi Wolfram,
> -----Original Message----- > From: linux-arm-kernel [mailto:linux-arm-kernel- > bounces@lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of Wolfram Sang > Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 5:03 PM > To: Sricharan > Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org; architt@codeaurora.org; linux-arm- > msm@vger.kernel.org; ntelkar@codeaurora.org; agross@codeaurora.org; > linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; dmaengine@vger.kernel.org; linux- > i2c@vger.kernel.org; iivanov@mm-sol.com; galak@codeaurora.org; > andy.gross@linaro.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 0/6] i2c: qup: Add support for v2 tags and bam dma > > > > Sricharan R (6): > > > i2c: qup: Change qup_wait_writeready function to use for all timeouts > > > i2c: qup: Add V2 tags support > > > i2c: qup: Transfer each i2c_msg in i2c_msgs without a stop bit > > > i2c: qup: Add bam dma capabilities > > > dts: msm8974: Add blsp2_bam dma node > > > dts: msm8974: Add dma channels for blsp2_i2c1 node > > > > > Wolfram, Does the first 4 patches looks good to be picked up ? > > Except for patch 3 (I replied seperately), the rest looks okay to me. I > wondered a little if it would make sense to make a new driver for v2 + DMA, > because the additions were quite massive. But I'll leave it up to you if there is > enough shared code between the two versions, so that a single driver will be > better. Hmm, addition of V2 reused code, more than 50% addition of new loc in this series, lot of it from DMA, but at this point it feels ok to have it in a single driver.
Regards, Sricharan
| |