On 10/8/20 5:05 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
Hi!
During internal review of one patch I have been puzzled with the following code
and Pierre suggested to ask mailing list for help.
My main concern is what was the idea behind? Does it mean we support optional
DMA in such case? If now, why not to return an error code directly?
---8<---8<---8<---
Why ASoC core has the following code in the first place:
387 chan = dma_request_chan(dev, name);
388 if (IS_ERR(chan)) {
389 if (PTR_ERR(chan) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
390 return -EPROBE_DEFER;
391 pcm->chan[i] = NULL;
392 } else {
393 pcm->chan[i] = chan;
394 }
(note lines 389-391).
If PIO fallback is not okay, why not to return an error there?
no idea, the code has been this way since 2013
(5eda87b890f867b098e5566b5543642851e8b9c3)
It's worth asking the question on the mailing list, I don't know if this is a
bug or a feature.
This is to handle the case where a only TX or only RX is supported. In
that case it is not an error if only one DMA channel is specified.
