On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 04:51:54PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

On Wednesday 18 November 2015 17:43:04 Andy Shevchenko wrote:

quoted

quoted

I assume that the sst-firmware.c case is a mistake, it should just use a
plain DMA_SLAVE and not DMA_MEMCPY.

Other way around.

Ok, I see. In that case I guess it also shouldn't call
dmaengine_slave_config(), right? I don't think that's valid
on a MEMCPY channel.

Yes it is not valid. In this case the dma driver should invoke a generic memcpy
and not need slave parameters, knowing the hw and reason for this (firmware
download to DSP memory), this doesn't qualify for slave case.
In fact filter function doesn't need a channel, any channel in this
controller will be good

-- 
~Vinod