On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:59 PM Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/02/2020 12.37, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:32 PM Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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. Then why simple not to convert (start converting) those few drivers to new API and simple remove the old one? > Imho it is confusing to have 4+ APIs to do the same thing, but in a > slightly different way. It was always an excuse by authors "that too many drivers to convert..." > > 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. Why not to remove them and don't punish users of new drivers / platforms? > 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. No, it's a reason when you first take care of existing users and decide to obsolete an API followed by removal few releases later. But I see no reason to keep such APIs at all, so, instead of this *wonderful* messages perhaps somebody should do better work? > 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. Isn't it a point to do better review rather than scary end users? -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
