> -----Original Message----- > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 4:08 PM > To: Joel A Fernandes > Cc: Nori, Sekhar; Fernandes, Joel A; Tony Lindgren; Matt Porter; Grant Likely; > Rob Herring; Vinod Koul; Mark Brown; Cousson, Benoit; Russell King; Rob > Landley; Andrew Morton; Jason Kridner; Koen Kooi; Devicetree Discuss; Linux > OMAP List; Linux ARM Kernel List; Linux DaVinci Kernel List; Linux Kernel > Mailing List; Linux Documentation List; Linux MMC List; Linux SPI Devel List > Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 05/11] edma: config: Enable config options for EDMA > > On Monday 24 June 2013, Joel A Fernandes wrote: > > >> Yes sure, right now they are defined as follows in include/linux/edma.h: > > >> > > >> #if defined(CONFIG_TI_EDMA) || defined(CONFIG_TI_EDMA_MODULE) > bool > > >> edma_filter_fn(struct dma_chan *, void *); #else static inline bool > > >> edma_filter_fn(struct dma_chan *chan, void *param) { return false; > > >> } #endif > > > > > > It's best to just define the filter function in the platform code > > > and pass a pointer to it through platform data. The way you do it > > > above makes the slave drivers inherently nonportable. > > > > But with DT-only platforms, can you really do that? > > The nice thing about this is that with a DT-only platform, the filter function will > automatically go away: you have no platform_data, which means that if you > are using dma_request_slave_channel_compat, you just pass NULL as the filter > and the filter-data, same as just calling dma_request_slave_channel. > [Joel] Ah yes! Thanks for that. Right, edma_filter_fn is not passed explicitly for DT case. Thanks, Joel -- 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
