On 15/06/2016 15:16, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 06/15/16 14:39, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Finally, assert that the other caller of esp_do_dma (esp_transfer_data) >> only transfers data and not a command. This is true because get_cmd >> cancels the old request synchronously before its caller handle_satn_stop >> sets do_cmd to 1. > > I didn't try to verify why the claim is true, but if the claim is true, > then the assert() is valid, and fits in with the changes in esp_do_dma() > and handle_ti() -- the logic taken over by handle_ti() from esp_do_dma() > is not reached when esp_do_dma() is called by esp_transfer_data(), but > then again, on that call path, the original logic was never reached anyway. > > (If the claim is wrong, we'll quickly find out with the assert() :))
Correct. :) > ... So, I think if you wish, you could lower the "to_device" assignment > a bit more. Will do, thanks. Paolo
