On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 06:30:14AM +0000, Yao Yuan wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wolfram Sang [mailto:wsa@the-dreams.de] > > Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:55 PM > > To: Yuan Yao-B46683 > > Cc: marex@denx.de; LW@KARO-electronics.de; mark.rutland@arm.com; Duan > > Fugang-B38611; shawn.guo@linaro.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- > > arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] i2c: imx: add DMA support for freescale i2c > > driver > > > -#include > > > -#include > > > -#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > #include > > > #include > > > #include > > > -#include > > > #include > > > +#include > > > #include > > > -#include > > > -#include > > > -#include > > > -#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > #include > > > #include > > > +#include > > > #include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > +#include > > > > This is a seperate patch. > > [Yuan Yao] > Here I just adjust the order of the include file as alphabetical order. > If it looks strange I can only add the include files about DMA. It doesn't look strange, it makes sense to do that. However, this should be a seperate patch. a) sort includes b) add the dma includes in the dma patch > After DMA callback, I must wait until the last byte transfer completely. > It's a very short time which less than 10us. > By the way, how about use udelay(10) instead of schedule()? > udelay(10) is waiting a appropriate time. > schedule() is waiting too long for i2c but may be good for whole system. > Can you give me some suggestion? It doesn't matter much. Leave it as it is. If somebody wants to change it, it can be patched.