Hi Vinod,
> On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:17:32PM +0530, Kedareswara rao Appana wrote:
> > + if (chan->cyclic) {
> > + if (chan->ext_addr)
> > + dma_writeq(chan,
> XILINX_DMA_REG_TAILDESC,
> > + chan->cyclic_seg_v->phys);
> > + else
> > + dma_ctrl_write(chan,
> XILINX_DMA_REG_TAILDESC,
> > + chan->cyclic_seg_v->phys);
> > + } else {
> > + if (chan->ext_addr)
> > + dma_writeq(chan,
> XILINX_DMA_REG_TAILDESC,
> > + tail_segment->phys);
> > + else
> > + dma_ctrl_write(chan,
> XILINX_DMA_REG_TAILDESC,
> > + tail_segment->phys);
>
> this looks ugly and repeated few times. Why not have xilinx_write() which does
> either dma_writeq or dma_ctrl_write based on channel..
Ok sure will fix in the next version...
>
> > + if (chan->ext_addr) {
> > + hw->buf_addr = lower_32_bits(buf_addr +
> > + sg_used + (period_len * i));
> > + hw->buf_addr_msb = upper_32_bits(buf_addr +
> > + sg_used + (period_len * i));
> > + } else {
> > + hw->buf_addr = buf_addr + sg_used +
> > + (period_len * i);
> > + }
>
> similar wrapper here would make code more readable
Ok Sure will fix in the next version...
Thanks,
Kedar.
