Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 15 Jul 2020 17:31:45 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Serge Semin <Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Alexey Malahov <Alexey.Malahov@baikalelectronics.ru>,
        Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 08/11] dmaengine: dw: Add dummy device_caps callback
Message-ID: <20200715120145.GL34333@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200709224550.15539-1-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
 <20200709224550.15539-9-Sergey.Semin@baikalelectronics.ru>
 <20200710085123.GF3703480@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20200710094510.j6ugxygkadxex53c@mobilestation>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200710094510.j6ugxygkadxex53c@mobilestation>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10-07-20, 12:45, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 11:51:23AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 01:45:47AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> > > Since some DW DMA controllers (like one installed on Baikal-T1 SoC) may
> > > have non-uniform DMA capabilities per device channels, let's add
> > > the DW DMA specific device_caps callback to expose that specifics up to
> > > the DMA consumer. It's a dummy function for now. We'll fill it in with
> > > capabilities overrides in the next commits.
> > 
> 
> > Just a reminder (mainly to Vinod) of my view to this.
> > Unneeded churn, should be folded to patch 9.
> 
> Just to remind (mainly to Vinod). That's Andy's bikeshedding.
> This isn't a churn, since it's totally normal to design the patchset in this way:
> introduce a callback, then fill it in with functionality.

Looking at both patches, they do one thing, so please fold them in..

-- 
~Vinod