Re: [PATCH 2/4] mtd: sh_flctl: drop unused variable

[Nicholas Mc Guire]

On Mon, 04 May 2015, Vinod Koul wrote:

> On Sun, May 03, 2015 at 10:33:43PM +0300, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > Hi Nicholas,
> > 
> > Thank you for the patch.
> > 
> > On Saturday 02 May 2015 09:57:08 Nicholas Mc Guire wrote:
> > > shdma_tx_submit() called via dmaengine_submit() returns the assigned
> > > cookie but this is not used here so the variable and assignment can
> > > be dropped.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Mc Guire <hofrat@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > I would rephrase the commit message to avoid mentioning shdma_tx_submit() as 
> > that's not relevant. Something like "dmaengine_submit() returns the assigned
> > cookie but this is not used here so the variable and assignment can be 
> > dropped."
> And I am bit surrised about taht. Ideally the driver should use the cookie
> to check the status later on...
>
looking at other drivers it seems like the drivers should call 
dma_submit_error(cookie); on the received cookie - which does:
  return cookie < 0 ? cookie : 0;
but doing that after dmaengine_submit() which actually already queued the
this request in shdma_base.cc:shdma_tx_submit() might not be that helpful 
and looking at dma_cookie_assign() I do not see how the condition that 
dma_submit_error is checking for ever could occur as it can't go below 
cookie = DMA_MIN_COOKIE which is defined to 1 (include/linux/dmaengine.h)

As other drivers seem to not be doing more with the returned cookie than 
calling dma_submit_error() on it this seems ok here ...but I'm not that
deep into this - my starting point was a simple API inconsisteny in the
use of wait_for_completion_timeout() :)

thx!
hofrat
--
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/