On Sunday 05 January 2014, Florian Meier wrote: > On 05.01.2014 15:06, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > >> Sigh, the API is developing faster than I can keep track with updating > >> this patch. I hope some day I will be faster.... > >> When Russell told me about the second one before, it hoped that I can > >> avoid merging different trees on my own, but it seems that you want me > >> to do that ;-) > > > > The dma_get_any_slave_channel() change is probably my fault. I suggested > > both the initial dma_get_slave_channel() API and this one because the > > original approach turned out too complicated. If dma_set_mask_and_coherent(). > > > > I don't think you have to merge other trees, to get both APIs, they should > > already be part of the dma-slave tree that your patch would get merged > > into. If not, we can probably come up with a different solution. The > > dma_set_mask_and_coherent() suggestion is not as important as the > > dma_get_any_slave_channel() one, if you have to choose between them. > > Both changes are in the slave-dma tree, but I need patches from the > bcm2835 tree and the asoc tree, too. Although, it shouldn't be too > complicated to merge them, I hope. Why do you need the bcm2835 and asoc changes? The addition of the dmaengine driver should be self-contained as far as I can tell, except that the audio driver won't work unless both are merged. This wouldn't be considered a strict dependency since you are not breaking anything that used to work prior to the patches, and you don't create a kernel version that doesn't build. Note that this would be different if you had a dependency on a platform_data definition. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
