Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
Date:   Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:18:49 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@canonical.com>,
        Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>,
        Green Wan <green.wan@sifive.com>,
        dmaengine <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/4] Determine the number of DMA channels by
 'dma-channels' property
Message-ID: <YlQHkeZhHvC/n0G5@matsya>
References: <cover.1648461096.git.zong.li@sifive.com>
 <YlA1DwdIMoQ1dXZS@matsya>
 <CANXhq0ramPvr=CL2oPsPAnWiF9X0eYVt8HGAVWPE9mZ5PfhG7A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANXhq0ramPvr=CL2oPsPAnWiF9X0eYVt8HGAVWPE9mZ5PfhG7A@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 11-04-22, 10:51, Zong Li wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2022 at 9:13 PM Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 28-03-22, 17:52, Zong Li wrote:
> > > The PDMA driver currently assumes there are four channels by default, it
> > > might cause the error if there is actually less than four channels.
> > > Change that by getting number of channel dynamically from device tree.
> > > For backwards-compatible, it uses the default value (i.e. 4) when there
> > > is no 'dma-channels' information in dts.
> >
> > Applied patch 1 & 4 to dmaengine-next, thanks
> 
> Hi Vinod,
> Thanks for your help and review. For patch 2 and 3, does it mean that
> we should go through the riscv tree?

Yes

-- 
~Vinod