On Sunday 13 July 2014 22:00:11 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Hi all, > > On 10th of May I submitted 2 patches > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.drivers.devicetree/73577 > > of which 1 adds documentation for DT bindings for a dmaengine driver. The > driver doesn't add any new bindings, only standard bindings are used and > the respective generic document is referenced in the patch. This makes me > think, that a review of that patch should really be a matter of a couple > of minutes. Unfortunateky this still hasn't happened. If the patch had > been reviewed promptly, it still could make it into 3.16. We're at > 3.16-rc4 in the meantime. Have I done anything wrong in the patch > submission procedure? What do I have to do to get this patch reviewed soon > to get it in 3.17? The fallback for device drivers is that if nobody finds the time to review the binding, the subsystem maintainer can just take it anyway. I hadn't seen this driver so far, but looked at it now. The binding looks good to me, so feel free to resend it with Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> The driver also looks good, but there is one part that can now be done more efficiently: + dma_cap_zero(mask); + dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, mask); + + dchan = dma_request_channel(mask, nbpf_dma_filter, ofdma->of_node); + if (!dchan) + return NULL; Here you can just call dma_get_any_slave_channel() and remove the filter function. The way you do it is also correct, but we're trying to get away from that, as it just adds pointless overhead. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
