[PATCH v3] dmaengine: driver support for FSL RaidEngine device.

[Xuelin Shi]

Hi Dan & Vinod,

I have sent out the v4 of this patch and not received any further feedback yet.

This patch looks ruled out from the patchwork. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-dmaengine/list/?page=2

So do you know what happened to this patch?

Thanks,
Xuelin Shi


-----Original Message-----
From: Shi Xuelin-B29237 
Sent: 2014年4月15日 11:08
To: 'Dan Williams'
Cc: Koul, Vinod; andriy.shevchenko at intel.com; dmaengine at vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev; Rai Harninder-B01044; Burmi Naveen-B16502
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3] dmaengine: driver support for FSL RaidEngine device.

Yes, "depend on !ASYNC_TX_CHANNEL_SWITCH" is better since fsldma selects this condition.

Thanks,
Xuelin Shi

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.williams at intel.com]
Sent: 2014年4月15日 8:30
To: Shi Xuelin-B29237
Cc: Koul, Vinod; andriy.shevchenko at intel.com; dmaengine at vger.kernel.org; linuxppc-dev; Rai Harninder-B01044; Burmi Naveen-B16502
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] dmaengine: driver support for FSL RaidEngine device.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Xuelin Shi <xuelin.shi at freescale.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> fsl dma device and fsl raid device are two differenct devices that 
> both provide async_memcpy capability, so I use !FSL_DMA to disable the fsl dma device.
>
> That's to say, either select fsldma device, either fsl raid device.
>

Right, but that's not what your proposed Kconfig dependency line does.

You want something like "depends on FSL_SOC && !(FSL_DMA || FSL_DMA=m)"

However, the more problematic option is ASYNC_TX_CHANNEL_SWITCH.  That option is problematic for RAID, so I propose "depend on !ASYNC_TX_CHANNEL_SWITCH" since that addresses both problems.