On 17-07-21, 14:01, Marek Vasut wrote: > 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 ? And how many places would that be..? The xilinx driver using xilinx dma right> > > > 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. This has to be more than 3 yrs old then! -- ~Vinod
