On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 06:39:37PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote: > > My only thought here is if the pointer for chan is valid, should this > imply that the pointer for chan->device should also be valid? In other > words, do we need to check for both? I suppose this would be a fair assumption that chan->device would be valid as long as you get a valid channel. > I see that today in dma_async_device_register() we do not check that > chan->device is populated for each channel, but I am wondering if we > should and if it is not return an error? Without this nothing will work, so you would essentially get a broken one. So don't think it is worth checking > This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain > confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution > is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by > reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ummmmm? Thanks -- ~Vinod -- 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
