lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/28] dmaengine: use DMA_COMPLETE for dma completion status
Hi Vinod

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 11:28:29PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> > Hi Vinod
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Oct 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > > Yes i missed it in first place update the patch to fix that
> >
> > Are you planning to post a fixed version of this patch or you just fix it
> > internally? Would be good to have it posted to be able to ack it and other
> > relevant patches.
> looks like you missed it... I had posted updated patch [1] in this thread here
> and I posted 29th patch as removal one [2]

No, I didn't miss those, but as Sebastian pointed out and as I commented
too, also that v2 version wasn't correct, so, a fixed v3 was needed.
Consider this:

In patch 1 you do:

diff --git a/include/linux/dmaengine.h b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
index 0bc7275..683c380 100644
--- a/include/linux/dmaengine.h
+++ b/include/linux/dmaengine.h
@@ -45,16 +45,17 @@ static inline int dma_submit_error(dma_cookie_t cookie)

/**
* enum dma_status - DMA transaction status
- * @DMA_SUCCESS: transaction completed successfully
+ * @DMA_COMPLETE: transaction completed
* @DMA_IN_PROGRESS: transaction not yet processed
* @DMA_PAUSED: transaction is paused
* @DMA_ERROR: transaction failed
*/
enum dma_status {
- DMA_SUCCESS,
+ DMA_COMPLETE,
DMA_IN_PROGRESS,
DMA_PAUSED,
DMA_ERROR,
+ DMA_SUCCESS,
};

/**
and then in a couple of places

- return DMA_SUCCESS;
+ return DMA_COMPLETE;

So, after that your patch dmaengine would be returning DMA_COMPLETE in
case of success, i.e. 0. But all the DMAC and user drivers would still be
checking for

if (status != DMA_COMPLETE) {
i.e. comparing status with 4 and thus detecting false errors, until your
further 28 patches fix them. That's why, as Sebastian pointed out it was
important to define DMA_COMPLETE and DMA_SUCCESS with the _same_ numerical
value in your patch 1.

> Both were pushed to -next after few days

That's a pity, but I still don't see them in upstream -next, so, maybe
it's still possible to fix?

Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D.
Freelance Open-Source Software Developer
http://www.open-technology.de/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-10-25 09:01    [W:0.069 / U:1.288 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site