On 12/16/2013 12:47 PM, Sergei Ianovich wrote: > On Mon, 2013-12-16 at 10:58 +0100, Daniel Mack wrote: >> On 12/14/2013 08:34 PM, Sergei Ianovich wrote: >>> On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 20:06 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> >>>> The patch looks ok in case we are merging your patches for 3.14 >>>> and Daniel's patches later than that. If they end up in the >>>> same merge window however, we'd have to be care to resolve >>>> the obvious conflict in a proper way. >>> >>> The most recently published Daniel's patch (Aug 2013) wraps >>> IORESOURCE_DMA handling on DT presence in a similar way, >> >> Erm, no it doesn't. My patch uses dma_request_slave_channel_compat() in >> DT case, and that works fine with the current version of pdma, and >> there's no need to read the "dmas" properties directly. >> >> If you want to provide a way to simply denote the dma channel numbers, >> without looking at the actual phandle, then yes, we could merge this >> patch first, but it would be effectively reverted a proper implementation. > > Daniel is right. His patch doesn't need to read "dmas" directly. So my > patch won't need to change drivers/mmc/host/pxamci.c at all, if it is > applied after Daniel's one. > Btw. any driver that parses the dmas property manually should be considered broken. This is a classical layering violation. The layout of the dma specifier is DMA controller specific and should be completely transparent to the device driver. - Lars -- 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
