Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:38:00 -0700 | From | Dan Williams <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] fsldma: use PCI Read Multiple command |
| |
Kumar Gala wrote: > On Jun 12, 2009, at 4:23 AM, Li Yang wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Ira Snyder<iws@ovro.caltech.edu> >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 09:45:26PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> On Apr 27, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Dan Williams wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Timur Tabi <timur@freescale.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> Adding Kumar to the CC: list, since he might pick up the patch. >>>>>> >>>>> Acked-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> >>>>> >>>>> I agree with taking this through Kumar's tree. >>>> I'm going through patches for .31.. Should I still pick this up? >>>> Going >>>> forward should I pick up fsldma patches? >>>> >>> I'm fine with that, but you should probably talk to Li Yang (added to >>> CC). He's gotten in contact with me a few times recently. >> I am fine with both ways for this patch as it is only related to >> Freescale register details. But in general I think patches should go >> through functional subsystem, as they usually would need insight of >> the subsystem architecture. I prefer the way that the patch acked or >> signed-off by Freescale guys and push upstream through Dan's tree as >> most other subsystems did. Unless Dan prefers to ack the subsystem >> architectural part of each patch and have them pushed other way. > > I agree w/this and just wanting to see what Dan's preference is.
I'll take fsldma patches through the dmaengine tree with Leo's ack/sign-off. That last request was a one-off because I had nothing else to push and the discussion was very architecture specific.
Thanks, Dan
| |