On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 02:47:59PM +0100, Ludovic Desroches wrote:
> Return probe defer if requesting a dma channel without a dma controller probed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <ludovic.desroches@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> index 77fb647..df3f4c4 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c
> @@ -679,14 +679,21 @@ static int at91_twi_configure_dma(struct at91_twi_dev *dev, u32 phy_addr)
> dma_cap_zero(mask);
> dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, mask);
>
> - dma->chan_tx = dma_request_slave_channel_compat(mask, filter, pdata,
> - dev->dev, "tx");
> - if (!dma->chan_tx) {
> + dma->chan_tx = dma_request_slave_channel_reason(dev->dev, "tx");
Will it cause regressions if you drop the compat-version of requesting
a channel?
> + if (IS_ERR(dma->chan_tx)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(dma->chan_tx);
> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> + dev_warn(dev->dev, "no DMA channel available at the moment\n");
I'd say drop this warning. The core usually prints when deferred probing
takes place.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
