On 11-07-18, 05:34, Robin Gong wrote:

quoted

On 11-07-18, 00:23, Robin Gong wrote:

quoted

Add MEMCPY support, meanwhile, add SDMA_BD_MAX_CNT instead of
'0xffff'.

latter part should be its own patch. Never mix things

Okay, I will split it even for this minor change.

Yes, a patch should represent _one_ thing, describe that one thing and
do that one thing.

Anything else, doesn't matter how simple or complex should be an
individual patch

quoted

quoted

+	if (!desc)
+		goto err_out;
+
+	do {
+		count = min_t(size_t, len, SDMA_BD_MAX_CNT);
+		bd = &desc->bd[i];
+		bd->buffer_addr = dma_src;
+		bd->ext_buffer_addr = dma_dst;
+		bd->mode.count = count;
+		desc->chn_count += count;
+
+		switch (sdmac->word_size) {
+		case DMA_SLAVE_BUSWIDTH_4_BYTES:

This looks wrong, we are in memcpy, there is no SLAVE so no SLAVE widths..

Okay, will remove check bus width.

it is not about bus_width but the fact that you are using slave
concepts. In memcpy we have _no_ slave, hence do not use anything
related to slave including dma_slave_config

-- 
~Vinod