Hi Mark, On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 11:39 +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 09, 2015 at 06:05:21PM +0800, Eddie Huang wrote: > > > --- a/drivers/spi/spi.c > > +++ b/drivers/spi/spi.c > > @@ -539,8 +539,8 @@ static int __spi_map_msg(struct spi_master *master, > > struct spi_message *msg) > > if (!master->can_dma) > > return 0; > > > - tx_dev = master->dma_tx->device->dev; > > - rx_dev = master->dma_rx->device->dev; > > + tx_dev = master->dma_tx ? master->dma_tx->device->dev : > > master->dev; > > + rx_dev = master->dma_rx ? master->dma_rx->device->dev : master- > > > Is this what you want ? Actually, I don't like first one at all. > > Not quite what I'd been thinking of - we can't just pick the device in > the core safely, the device might be a MFD or have some other > restriction that needs us to use a separate struct device. However most > of those cases are likely to point towards implementing a dmaengine > device so probably the above will work for most cases and is fine. Can > you send a proper patch please? Sure, we will send this with new MTK SPI driver, such that can verify it. > > Please don't use the ternery operator, though. OK, will fix it Eddie Thanks -- 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
