From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936393Ab3DIUie (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:38:34 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:54002 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936180Ab3DIUiL (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Apr 2013 16:38:11 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/8] dmaengine: ste_dma40: Ensure src and dst registers are configured correctly Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2013 22:38:07 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.8.0-16-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linus.walleij@stericsson.com References: <1365532783-27425-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <201304092057.29684.arnd@arndb.de> <20130409190916.GF25316@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130409190916.GF25316@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201304092238.07286.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:Cb7c04oOzHJgH4EPW4vVx5VcN0x0aj8CsVLxF6ekZ6/ 9AyiJd1TH7d2TloOrcQj+AasMPrhbfxg19CkD8gYK5GZIFcqkj WGckopmRd3n2OTH7Qdhz08yX75arNHiZWtUUZ2CmmRULgy5wb9 snItIB80jg7CqYGRLPTAdbrAJsSAFswzKAKpZghYH0UdkNjOkk zOQgCTSInXlB1I/093Zi293yDuuqSAEqxop9h/5sEu4HGU64ns jd3j4OmmmtaZHsBZjlfzKK2vOzJE2JCvYUB9YITu0vmrbDOOj/ 3WLFh/ZxukzbWvnIi5xNQZG1RTZ9MOW271CXLUAgqQj+bhA+Lm iR4hzeqWyMg4NDXgvupY= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 09 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote: > On Tue, 09 Apr 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > On Tuesday 09 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote: > > > Confusingly d40_log_cfg() is used to set up the logical channel > > > configuration registers, but d40_phy_cfg() is used to configure > > > physical and logical registers, so it should be called in both > > > cases. It is the function call's final attribute which determines > > > whether it's a physical or logical channel, not whether the > > > function is called or not. > > > > So how did it ever work? Your description sounds like it was > > broken all along, but I would assume that someone tested the code. > > From what I can see, not. > > My best guess is that the 'test' was to see if the configuration > changed using the debug print at the end of the function. I don't see > how else the configuration can be written to hardware. Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann