On 11/18/2015 04:29 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 16:21:26 Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> 2. non slave channel requests, where only the functionality matters, like >> memcpy, interleaved, memset, etc. >> We could have a simple: >> dma_request_channel(mask); >> >> But looking at the drivers using dmaengine legacy dma_request_channel() API: >> Some sets DMA_INTERRUPT or DMA_PRIVATE or DMA_SG along with DMA_SLAVE: >> drivers/misc/carma/carma-fpga.c DMA_INTERRUPT|DMA_SLAVE|DMA_SG >> drivers/misc/carma/carma-fpga-program.c DMA_MEMCPY|DMA_SLAVE|DMA_SG >> drivers/media/platform/soc_camera/mx3_camera.c DMA_SLAVE|DMA_PRIVATE >> sound/soc/intel/common/sst-firmware.c DMA_SLAVE|DMA_MEMCPY >> >> as examples. >> Not sure how valid are these... > > It's usually not much harder to separate out the legacy case from > the normal dma_request_slave_channel_reason(), so those drivers don't > really need to use the unified compat API. The current dma_request_slave_channel()/_reason() is not the 'legacy' API. Currently there is no way to get the reason why the dma channel request fails when using the _compat() version of the API, which is used by drivers which can be used in DT or in legacy mode as well. Sure, they all could have local if(){}else{} for handling this, but it is not a nice thing. As it was discussed instead of adding the _reason() version for the _compat call, we should simplify the dmaengine API for getting the channel and at the same time we will have ERR_PTR returned instead of NULL. -- Péter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html