Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 08/10] ASoC: dmaengine_pcm: Add open function for DT DMA request
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 07:33:09PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
Add a function to open a DMA PCM substream using devicetree data provided via the client device node. The patch introduces a public function and a private subfunction that is called by both open functions.
Someone (I think it was Shawn) sent a very similar patch just recently which appears to have fallen out of my inbox unfortunately - can you please check what's going on there and coordinate with them? Let me know if you can't find the patch and I'll dig it out.
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 07:02:07PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 07:33:09PM +0100, Markus Pargmann wrote:
Add a function to open a DMA PCM substream using devicetree data provided via the client device node. The patch introduces a public function and a private subfunction that is called by both open functions.
Someone (I think it was Shawn) sent a very similar patch just recently which appears to have fallen out of my inbox unfortunately - can you please check what's going on there and coordinate with them? Let me know if you can't find the patch and I'll dig it out.
It's here, Markus.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/106027/focus=106031
Mark,
I did not see any objection from you on that patch, so I'm waiting for you to publish a branch for it, so that my mxs-dma generic binding series can move forward.
Shawn
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:18:29AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
I did not see any objection from you on that patch, so I'm waiting for you to publish a branch for it, so that my mxs-dma generic binding series can move forward.
I commented on the removal of the const from the name parameter (and ideally an in order version of the patch series would be nice) but in general I was mostly waiting for review and test from other people. DT and dmaengine both seem endless sources of problems so I'd rather make sure everyone's had a chance to look.
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:49:45AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:18:29AM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
I did not see any objection from you on that patch, so I'm waiting for you to publish a branch for it, so that my mxs-dma generic binding series can move forward.
I commented on the removal of the const from the name parameter (and
I just double checked my mailbox and can only see the conversation between you and rmk, nothing particularly on the removal of the const from the name parameter. Or I'm still missing something?
Shawn
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 02:04:45PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
I just double checked my mailbox and can only see the conversation between you and rmk, nothing particularly on the removal of the const from the name parameter. Or I'm still missing something?
You're missing the bit where I complained about you doing that - you should be adding the const to the dmaengine side, not removing it from the client side. Unless there's some reason it should be modifiable, but that'd be very surprising.
participants (2)
-
Mark Brown -
Shawn Guo