On 7/17/21 1:36 PM, Vinod Koul wrote:
On 16-07-21, 20:22, Marek Vasut wrote:
Various DMA users call the dmaengine_slave_config() and expect it to
succeed, but that can only succeed if .device_config is implemented.
Add empty device_config function rather than patching all the places
which use dmaengine_slave_config().
.device_config is optional, Yes the dmaengine_slave_config() will check
and return error...
I think it would make sense to handle this in caller... (ignore
ENOSYS..) rather than add a dummy one
That's what I was trying to avoid -- patching all the places in kernel
which might fail. Why handle it in caller ?
Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut <marex@xxxxxxx>
Cc: Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Kedareswara rao Appana <appana.durga.rao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx>
ummm..? you really need to update this :)
I had the patch around for a while indeed, it fell through the cracks.
