On 二, 2019-06-04 at 18:03 +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On 29-05-19, 17:08, yibin.gong@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > > > @@ -205,8 +228,9 @@ static int fsl_edma_probe(struct > > platform_device *pdev) > > if (!fsl_edma) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > - fsl_edma->version = v1; > > - fsl_edma->dmamux_nr = DMAMUX_NR; > > + fsl_edma->drvdata = drvdata; > > + fsl_edma->version = drvdata->version; > > + fsl_edma->dmamux_nr = drvdata->dmamuxs; > And can we avoid the duplication here, you have version and dmamuxs > represented in two places. But right now it looks logical so the > removal > should be done after this series To avoid more code changes in other edma driver such as mcf-edma.c and fsl-edma-common.c(replace all version/dmamux_nr with new 'drvdata'),meanwhile, no board to test mcf-edma so I keep 'version'/'dmamux' here in the last minute. But if you stick, I would try to refine it in next version. >
