On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 06:48:23PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: > On 04/06/2018 10:34 AM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 04:44:16PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: > > > On 04/05/2018 04:17 PM, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:59:35PM +0300, Sergey Suloev wrote: > > > > > On 04/05/2018 12:19 PM, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > > > > > The point of that patch was precisely to allow to send more data > > > > > > than > > > > > > the FIFO. You're breaking that behaviour without any justification, > > > > > > and this is not ok. > > > > > I am sorry, but you can't. That's a hardware limitation. > > > > Are you positive about that? Normally you can add things to hardware > > > > FIFOs while they're being drained so so long as you can keep data > > > > flowing in at least as fast as it's being consumed. > > > Well, normally yes, but this is not the case with the hardware that I own. > > > My a20 (BPiM1+) and a31 (BPiM2) boards behaves differently. With a > > > transfer > > > larger than FIFO then TC interrupt never happens. > > Because you're not supposed to have a transfer larger than the FIFO, > > but to have to setup at first a transfer the size of the FIFO, and > > then when it's (or starts to be) depleted, fill it up again. > > According to what you said the driver must implement > "transfer_one_message" instead of "transfer_one"
I'm not sure what makes you think that I said that. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Description: PGP signature