Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] dmaengine: Actions: get rid of bit fields from dma descriptor

From: Amit Tomer <amittomer25@gmail.com>
To: Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
Cc: "Andre Przywara" <andre.przywara@arm.com>,
	"Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>,
	"Manivannan Sadhasivam" <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
	dan.j.williams@intel.com, cristian.ciocaltea@gmail.com,
	dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-actions@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] dmaengine: Actions: get rid of bit fields from dma descriptor
Date: Fri, 15 May 2020 00:04:07 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CABHD4K8F_sk3Xsevu4pMtR1jEanh5-dSATLYySPKW-nDY9fAvA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200514182750.GJ14092@vkoul-mobl>

Hi,

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 11:58 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On 14-05-20, 21:40, Amit Singh Tomar wrote:
> > At the moment, Driver uses bit fields to describe registers of the DMA
> > descriptor structure that makes it less portable and maintainable, and
> > Andre suugested(and even sketched important bits for it) to make use of
> > array to describe this DMA descriptors instead. It gives the flexibility
> > while extending support for other platform such as Actions S700.
> >
> > This commit removes the "owl_dma_lli_hw" (that includes bit-fields) and
> > uses array to describe DMA descriptor.
>
> So i see patch 1/9 and 2/9 in my inbox... where are the rest ? No cover
> to detail out what the rest contains, who should merge them etc etc!
>
> If you are sending a series to different subsystem please make a habit
> to CC everyone on cover letter so that we understand details about the
> series. If not dependent, just send as individual units to subsystems!

Ok, I would make note of it and Cc everyone on cover letter going forward.

Thanks
-Amit