On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:29:16PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:30 PM Serge Semin > <Sergey.Semin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:53:03PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 01:50:19AM +0300, Serge Semin wrote: > > > > Since some DW DMA controllers (like one installed on Baikal-T1 SoC) may > > > > have non-uniform DMA capabilities per device channels, let's add > > > > the DW DMA specific device_caps callback to expose that specifics up to > > > > the DMA consumer. It's a dummy function for now. We'll fill it in with > > > > capabilities overrides in the next commits. > > > > > > I think per se it is not worth to have it separated. Squash into the next one. > > > > bikeshadding? > > Actually no. > > > There is no any difference whether I add a dummy callback, then > > fill it in in a following up patch, or have the callback added together > > with some content. Let's see what Vinod thinks of it. Until then I'll stick with > > the current solution. > > The rule of thumb that we don't add dead code or code which is useless > per se. Go ahead and provide it with some usefulness. Actually yes. I've seen examples, which preparation patches first added prototypes with empty functionality, that in follow-up patches have been filled with a required code. I've seen Greg accepted such approach. So it's absolutely normal and acceptable. -Sergey > > -- > With Best Regards, > Andy Shevchenko
