On 12/03/2015 05:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 03 December 2015 16:33:12 Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> diff --git a/drivers/dma/edma.c b/drivers/dma/edma.c >> index 0675e268d577..46b305ea0d21 100644 >> --- a/drivers/dma/edma.c >> +++ b/drivers/dma/edma.c >> @@ -2297,6 +2297,12 @@ static int edma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> edma_set_chmap(&ecc->slave_chans[i], ecc->dummy_slot); >> } >> >> + if (info->slave_map) { >> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.map = info->slave_map; >> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.mapcnt = info->slavecnt; >> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.filter_fn = edma_filter_fn; >> + } >> + >> > > Just a minor comment here: I think all three assignments can be done > unconditionally. True. > As I mentioned before, I'd also remove 'struct dma_filter' > and put the three members in struct dma_device directly. In fact, the > filter function can go with the other function pointers for consistency. I just like to keep things in one place ;) I don't have strong stand on keeping the intermediate 'struct dma_filter' Let's hear from Vinod regarding to this -- Péter -- 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