Re: [PATCH v4] spi: qup: Add DMA capabilities

[Lars-Peter Clausen]

On 03/08/2015 01:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 03/07/2015 08:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > > Applied, but why is there no devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason()?
> > >
> > > I suppose the answer would be "we have a lot of slightly different
> > > cases and we have to get rid of current mess with legacy API calls".
> > > The most problematic stuff now inside DMA slave subsystem is so called
> > > "filter function". It's a main impediment right now as I understand.
> >
> > dma_request_slave_channel_reason() is the sane API though and does not use
> > the filter functions. Adding a devm version of it seems reasonable.
>
> It would be dma_request_slave_channel() in the first place, but legacy
> stuff didn't allow to do that, so here we are. I wouldn't like the
> idea of creating devm_dma_* before we will have stable function names
> without legacy involving.

At some point when all callers dma_request_slave_channel() have been updated 
to use dma_request_slave_channel_reason(), the later might be renamed to the 
former. I don't see the problem with having to do the same for a 
devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason().

- Lars
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/