On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>> The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
>> queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
>> wrappers somebody made an assumption
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
> queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
> wrappers somebody made an assumption that the same is needed for DMA
> engine API, which is
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
wrappers somebody made an assumption that the same is needed for DMA
engine API, which is not
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Mark Brown broo...@kernel.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 07:59:21PM +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
wrappers somebody made an
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 09:06:27AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
> If patch 1 thru 9 are uncontroversial now, maybe Vinod can apply
> these for v3.12 so we can get less noise and risk of collissions
> in the next merge window?
Patch 9 I was going to apply to ASoC towards the end of the release
On Wednesday 28 of August 2013 09:06:27 Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Tomasz Figa
wrote:
> > The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
> > queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
> > wrappers somebody made an
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
> queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
> wrappers somebody made an assumption that the same is needed for DMA
> engine API, which is not true.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com wrote:
The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
wrappers somebody made an assumption that the same is needed for DMA
engine API,
On Wednesday 28 of August 2013 09:06:27 Linus Walleij wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 7:59 PM, Tomasz Figa tomasz.f...@gmail.com
wrote:
The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
wrappers somebody
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 09:06:27AM +0200, Linus Walleij wrote:
If patch 1 thru 9 are uncontroversial now, maybe Vinod can apply
these for v3.12 so we can get less noise and risk of collissions
in the next merge window?
Patch 9 I was going to apply to ASoC towards the end of the release
cycle
The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
wrappers somebody made an assumption that the same is needed for DMA
engine API, which is not true.
In effect, Samsung ASoC DMA code was queuing the whole
The legacy S3C-DMA API required every period of a cyclic buffer to be
queued separately. After conversion of Samsung ASoC to Samsung DMA
wrappers somebody made an assumption that the same is needed for DMA
engine API, which is not true.
In effect, Samsung ASoC DMA code was queuing the whole
12 matches
Mail list logo
