Hi Andy, On 03/02/2020 12.37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:32 PM Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> dma_request_slave_channel_reason() no longer have user in mainline, it >> can be removed. >> >> Advise users of dma_request_slave_channel() and >> dma_request_slave_channel_compat() to move to dma_request_slave_chan() > > How? There are legacy ARM boards you have to care / remove before. > DMAengine subsystem makes a p*s off decisions The dma_slave_map support is added few years back for the legacy ARM boards, because we do care. daVinci, OMAP1, pxa, s3cx4xx and even m68k/coldfire moved over. Imho it is confusing to have 4+ APIs to do the same thing, but in a slightly different way. > without taking care of > (I'm talking now about dma release callback, for example) end users. I have been converting users in the background, but the _compat() is a bit more problematic as I need to maintainers of those legacy platforms to craft the map. If they care. Obviously the APIs are not going to be removed if we have a single user and if there is clearly a need for something the _compat() was doing and it can not be done via the dma_slave_map, then rest assured there will be a clean API to achieve just that. > They will be scary for no reason. There is a reason: to clean up the API to make it non confusing for the users. New drivers should not use the old API i new code and developers tend to pick the API they use after a quick 'git grep dma_request_' and see what the majority is using. - Péter Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki. Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
