18 Nov
2015
18 Nov
'15
5 p.m.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:43:04 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY.
Other way around.
Ok, I see. In that case I guess it also shouldn't call dmaengine_slave_config(), right? I don't think that's valid on a MEMCPY channel.
Hmm… That's right, though I suspect still one thing why it's done this way. Let's ask Vinod and Liam about that.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko