Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1371869 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bypass BAM init if Remotely controlled

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bypass BAM init if Remotely controlled Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com> - 2016-04-05 20:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bypass BAM init if Remotely controlled Andy Gross <andy.gross@linaro.org> - 2016-04-05 23:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bypass BAM init if Remotely controlled "Koul, Vinod" <vinod.koul@intel.com> - 2016-04-05 23:30 +0200

#1371869 — Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bypass BAM init if Remotely controlled

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> On 03/22/2016 11:49 AM, Pramod Gurav wrote:
> > On some QOCM platforms(eg 8996) BAM control registers are managed remotely
> > hence can not be accessed by application processor for writes. So skip the bam_init
> > for any such platform if DT property is set.
> > 
> > Tested on 8996 (BAM Global control is through remote) and DB410C boards.
> > Tested with i2c DMA on these targets which uses BAM as DMA controller.
> 
> I have similar patches at [1] already, could you check them first.

was there an update posted on these? I dont have this series or an update in
my queue

-- 
~Vinod

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1371953

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:19:50AM -0700, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> > On 03/22/2016 11:49 AM, Pramod Gurav wrote:
> > > On some QOCM platforms(eg 8996) BAM control registers are managed remotely
> > > hence can not be accessed by application processor for writes. So skip the bam_init
> > > for any such platform if DT property is set.
> > > 
> > > Tested on 8996 (BAM Global control is through remote) and DB410C boards.
> > > Tested with i2c DMA on these targets which uses BAM as DMA controller.
> > 
> > I have similar patches at [1] already, could you check them first.
> 
> was there an update posted on these? I dont have this series or an update in
> my queue

No updates that I can see.  The original is here:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/1/113

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1371964

On Tue, 2016-04-05 at 16:21 -0500, Andy Gross wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 11:19:50AM -0700, Vinod Koul wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:55:56AM +0200, Stanimir Varbanov wrote:
> > > On 03/22/2016 11:49 AM, Pramod Gurav wrote:
> > > > On some QOCM platforms(eg 8996) BAM control registers are
> > > > managed remotely
> > > > hence can not be accessed by application processor for writes.
> > > > So skip the bam_init
> > > > for any such platform if DT property is set.
> > > > 
> > > > Tested on 8996 (BAM Global control is through remote) and DB410C
> > > > boards.
> > > > Tested with i2c DMA on these targets which uses BAM as DMA
> > > > controller.
> > > 
> > > I have similar patches at [1] already, could you check them first.
> > 
> > was there an update posted on these? I dont have this series or an
> > update in
> > my queue
> 
> No updates that I can see.  The original is here:
> 
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/12/1/113
> 

And that seemed to have some discussion so I dont recall looking at it. 

-- 
~Vinod

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web