Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarz...@free.fr> writes: > David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> writes: > >> From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarz...@free.fr> >> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:40:28 +0100 >> >>> Convert the dma transfers to be dmaengine based, now pxa has a dmaengine >>> slave driver. This makes this driver a bit more PXA agnostic. >>> >>> The driver was only compile tested. The risk is quite small as no >>> current PXA platform I'm aware of is using smc911x driver. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarz...@free.fr> >> >> I've marked this 'deferred' in patchwork until someone tests >> these changes and says they should be good on all platforms >> this chip is used. > > Okay, so would any maintainer of non pxa boards give a feedback for this > patch ? > The ones I have found are : > - sh2007: Guennadi and Hitoshi > - armadillo5x0: Alberto > - imx v6 and imx v7: Fabio > I've added the patch at the end of this mail for easier handling. > > Now, if no maintainer gives it a test, what do we do, David ? I'm intending to > remove "arch/arm/mach-pxa/include/mach/dma.h" in the near future, which will > break this driver somehow (at least for PXA boards, even if none is identified > so far). > So could we agree on a deadline, and what you wish to do : either drop the > patch > or apply, or something else.
Hi David, Apart from Alberto who answered he cannot test it by lack of hardware, the others didn't answer. So how can I move forward ? Would you want me to amend the KConfig to add a "&& !ARCH_PXA" on the "depend" line ? Cheers. -- Robert
