Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934869AbaGXXoX (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:44:23 -0400 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:43986 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932131AbaGXXoW (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Jul 2014 19:44:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 16:44:20 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Dan Williams , Vinod Koul , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, kevin.z.m.zh@gmail.com, sunny@allwinnertech.com, shuge@allwinnertech.com, zhuzhenhua@allwinnertech.com, Arnd Bergmann , andriy.shevchenko@intel.com, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 0/2] Add support for the Allwinner A31 DMA Controller Message-Id: <20140724164420.d7c58c9b5f6bf3e06137494f@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20140724121315.GV20328@lukather> References: <1405626376-471-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <20140724121315.GV20328@lukather> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.2.0beta5 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 14:13:15 +0200 Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 09:46:14PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > This patchset adds support for the DMA controller found in the > > Allwinner A31 and A23 SoCs. > > > > This has been tested using the newly introduced SPI driver on an A31 > > EVK. Support for DMA-driven SPI transfers will be the subject of > > another patch serie. > > > > This has been around for around 5 monthes now, and didn't get any > > review but nitpicks for three versions, so I feel like it could be > > merged quite quickly. > > Ok, so, who should I bribe to get this merged? Turns out I'm easily bribed. The code looks pretty clean and simple and is refreshingly free of comments, which only confuse people anyway. I think we could do this as a single patch - is there any benefit to splitting it apart like this? The combinations of spin_lock()/spin_lock_irq() and spin_lock_irqsave() are a bit scary - it's easy to get these optimisations wrong. Has it been thoroughly tested with lockdep enabled? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/