From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from www522.your-server.de (www522.your-server.de [195.201.215.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07DE935D5FC; Tue, 3 Mar 2026 20:19:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.201.215.122 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772569189; cv=none; b=bgcxx29iRRY6MpDiSGEk6IgCp+djbFGtp1V1OkdlNmKzEtT+1BW8ciqfmPueqI107pDTrutyq8XBBoywzopvAda3I24AZuaUyHDTRcfPjgLokx4M8tV/WZRzixdiX0gyjcnLt/dZqYSgfryPa7G/IGLnbR7APb/kYd7rLDz0sos= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1772569189; c=relaxed/simple; bh=h5MeTRsQDTUiaWKOieV+NG2xHrk8f+TiRkqVKiT4Bdg=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:From:To:Subject: References:In-Reply-To; b=Vn+WiLB5dyjcldEVs0qjOdUl2+3n7jOLOpJQttwRXXDA7UO4NKN3/NpE+yE6WO1Ahs9KR1vJl99WlAhrRaXWcGxDWnhf3Quv7jo+FTXIcD76ZXuIk02LWOcRfR8NizK+r1VDqlGC0wy7CKdimPLUYvQ9XhO3CB2D4iVN1m2Yy8k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=folker-schwesinger.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=folker-schwesinger.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=folker-schwesinger.de header.i=@folker-schwesinger.de header.b=n1CNVCXE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=195.201.215.122 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=folker-schwesinger.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=folker-schwesinger.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=folker-schwesinger.de header.i=@folker-schwesinger.de header.b="n1CNVCXE" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=folker-schwesinger.de; s=default2212; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To: From:Cc:Message-Id:Date:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Mime-Version: Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=pF6V3B1qOpozco2GfEBhVD0JBZUNTaUDHRIurlyzIcE=; b=n1CNVCXEbTzgH8p0H2lMQsL+tC 8dEHAF5YG21JDl7D80YMj9DZY9KFWy1AKJstoXtfsVi6584VUUq0RIZ2zmSQSdw8ajjbZEqKG1sHX 1lvd/dFNNJ3yON2aCBTWNQe5AMpZeF6joZe5WTOzsanXr4R4GzvSW2ennRbAgURv6Rptx0WGGOwQ0 4xClT5Z5Zh+yA05yT0x46u+10bfsIX41bMdikX5VzZR73mwiVrUeQzT/HokLIcwAM/2l2gC3zQ6yc RpGDWQ9zIozoHqnhy2/kgvdxOqlbzkR08kp840FrzxwqENVZkO5PQI40ONTHSFoRUFQHCF043UEMl k2M/8SAw==; Received: from sslproxy07.your-server.de ([78.47.199.104]) by www522.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96.2) (envelope-from ) id 1vxWDS-0005V6-1a; Tue, 03 Mar 2026 21:19:38 +0100 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by sslproxy07.your-server.de with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vxWDR-0002Qu-24; Tue, 03 Mar 2026 21:19:37 +0100 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2026 20:19:35 +0000 Message-Id: Cc: "Rahul Navale" , , , , , , , , , , , , From: "Folker Schwesinger" To: "Rahul Navale" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] dmaengine: xilinx_dma: Fix per-channel direction reporting via device_caps X-Mailer: aerc 0.21.0-119-g0a449d4a7ff3 References: <20260302072433.5091-1-rahulnavale04@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: Clear (ClamAV 1.4.3/27929/Tue Mar 3 08:24:19 2026) On Tue Mar 3, 2026 at 9:09 PM CET, Folker Schwesinger wrote: > So I think it's reasonable to assume that either (1) the change in > return value of dma_get_slave_caps() causes different behaviour in the > callers (possibly [2][3]; needs verification) or that (2) dma_slave_caps > *caps, whose fields now get populated in dma_get_slave_caps() cause > different behavior in downstream users of said caps. > > For the next debugging step I suggest that we focus on (2) but also on > getting some insight into the callers. Could you please reapply > 7e01511443c3, keep the RFC patch in place... To quickly test theory (2), you could then comment out the caps-> assignments in dma_get_slave_caps() and check if this fixes your issue or not. <-->8--> diff --git i/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c w/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c index ca13cd39330b..91c5d7abb028 100644 --- i/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c +++ w/drivers/dma/dmaengine.c @@ -592,6 +592,7 @@ int dma_get_slave_caps(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dm= a_slave_caps *caps) if (!device->directions) return -ENXIO; + /* caps->src_addr_widths =3D device->src_addr_widths; caps->dst_addr_widths =3D device->dst_addr_widths; caps->directions =3D device->directions; @@ -603,6 +604,7 @@ int dma_get_slave_caps(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dm= a_slave_caps *caps) caps->cmd_pause =3D !!device->device_pause; caps->cmd_resume =3D !!device->device_resume; caps->cmd_terminate =3D !!device->device_terminate_all; + */ /* * DMA engine device might be configured with non-uniformly <--8<-->