On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/07/2015 08:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Applied, but why is there no devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason()? >> >> I suppose the answer would be "we have a lot of slightly different >> cases and we have to get rid of current mess with legacy API calls". >> The most problematic stuff now inside DMA slave subsystem is so called >> "filter function". It's a main impediment right now as I understand. > > dma_request_slave_channel_reason() is the sane API though and does not use > the filter functions. Adding a devm version of it seems reasonable. It would be dma_request_slave_channel() in the first place, but legacy stuff didn't allow to do that, so here we are. I wouldn't like the idea of creating devm_dma_* before we will have stable function names without legacy involving. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
