On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 04:35 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Treat as true condition the case when the mask is NULL.
>>
>> What do you think about setting some default (all "on") mask when mask
>> is not supplied?
>
> Probably rephrasing the commit message to say that when the mask is NULL it
> means that the caller does not care about the capabilities of the dma device
> thus return with true in such a case.
>
> We could also drop this patch and in private_candidate() :
>
> - if (!__dma_device_satisfies_mask(dev, mask)) {
> + if (mask && !__dma_device_satisfies_mask(dev, mask)) {
> pr_debug("%s: wrong capabilities\n", __func__);
> return NULL;
> }
Between patch and above proposal I would choose the latter one.
>> I don't know for sure but there might be cases when you don't want
>> literally *any* channel to satisfy.
>
> Or set DMA_SLAVE only in dma_request_chan()? What happens if we have cases
> when we are able to request channel for memcpy via dma_request_chan()
> (dedicated memcpy channel/DMA engine?) in that case we will have the SLAVE
> set, but not MEMCPY, or any other variation we do not know yet?
Frankly, have no idea.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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
