Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Oct 2013 08:43:13 +0200 (CEST) | From | Guennadi Liakhovetski <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 01/28] dmaengine: use DMA_COMPLETE for dma completion status |
| |
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 08:32:12AM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > 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. > Sure, I will fix this up now as suggested > > enum dma_status { > - DMA_SUCCESS, > + DMA_COMPLETE = 0, DMA_SUCCESS = 0, > > Thanks for poiting out.
Great! In my reply to Sebastian I proposed an equivlent but slightly different version:
enum dma_status { - DMA_SUCCESS, + DMA_COMPLETE, DMA_IN_PROGRESS, DMA_PAUSED, DMA_ERROR, }; + #define DMA_SUCCESS DMA_COMPLETE
but it doesn't really matter. Feel free to use whichever version you prefer.
Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/
| |