On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 14:37 -0400, Matt Porter wrote: > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:42:47AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > Can't we come up with a version of dma_request_slave_channel that works > > both ways for now: > > > > mcspi_dma->dma_rx = > > dma_request_slave_channel_compat(mask, omap_dma_filter_fn, &sig, > > &master->dev, mcspi_dma->dma_rx_ch_name); > > ... > > > > Then it's just question of patching away two lines later on rather than > > having to add all this if else to all the drivers first, then patching > > it away again. > > I think that something like that is workable with the implementation > simply checking for of_node to do the right thing. Yes, I think it would be better to have common API but underneath two implementations in transitional phase. -- ~Vinod -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
