On 25-08-22, 08:04, Serge Semin wrote:

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 10:12:23AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:

quoted

On 24-08-22, 17:07, Serge Semin wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 09:15:26PM +0530, Manivannan Sadhasivam wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 09:53:08PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:

quoted

quoted

I've tested this series on Qualcomm SM8450 SoC based dev board. So,

Tested-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <redacted>

Thanks.

quoted

Not sure what is the merging strategy for this one but this series should get
merged into a single tree. Since the PCI patch is touching the designware
driver, merging the series into dmaengine tree might result in conflict later.

Right, the series
[PATCH v5 00/20] PCI: dwc: Add generic resources and Baikal-T1 support
is supposed to be merged in first. Then this one will get to be
applied with no conflicts. That's what I imply in the head of the
cover-letter.

quoted

I dont see a dependency of dma patches with PCIe patches? I guess they
could go thru the respective trees now..?

There is a backward dependency: the PCIe patch in this series depends
on the eDMA patches and the patches in the patchset #3. So should you

What is the dependency...? Looking at the patches there does not seem to
be one...

merge the eDMA patches via your tree, the later patch in this series
and the patchset #3 would have needed to be applied in there too. So
the patches can't be split up between different branches. Seeing all
the changes (including the DW eDMA part) concern the PCIe device (DW
eDMA is a part of either DW PCIe End-point or Root Port) and we
already agreed to merge all the changes via the PCIe tree, I would
stick to the previous settled agreement.

-Sergey

quoted

-- 
~Vinod

-- 
~Vinod