From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: moinejf@free.fr (Jean-Francois Moine) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 17:28:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 3/5] dmaengine: sun6i: Add 4 as a possible burst value In-Reply-To: <20160311120601.GD8418@lukather> References: <7898ac737e1cce9542de662f1266d94bd451659e.1457695169.git.moinejf@free.fr> <20160311120601.GD8418@lukather> Message-ID: <20160311172858.6cffb492a18da7da76e7ed94@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:06:01 +0100 Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:01:29PM +0100, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > > Some DMA transfers, as for H3 audio, ask for 4 as a burst value. [snip] > > @@ -238,6 +238,8 @@ static inline s8 convert_burst(u32 maxburst) > > switch (maxburst) { > > case 1: > > return 0; > > + case 4: > > + return 1; > > This is true only for the H3. > > For the other SoCs that we support, the only valid values are 0 and 2, > so we need to reject those values. > > We should do that based on the compatible. > > The easiest solution would be to expose the available burst sizes in > the probe, and just our new one if we match that compatible, and any > invalid burst size would be rejected by the framework. Vinod, any > objection to that? Do you think that we should also check if the requested ports are valid, i.e. have a list/bitmap of the possible input/output ports per SoC, instead of just only the ID of the max port? -- Ken ar c'henta? | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/