On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:51 PM, Arnd Bergmann [off-list ref] 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.

Hmm… That's right, though I suspect still one thing why it's done this
way. Let's ask Vinod and Liam about that.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko