On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:16:47AM +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> 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?
All our devices with a DMA controller have been converted to device tree
and the legacy board support will be removed in 3.19 so it won't cause
regression.
>
> > + 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.
>
Ok, I'll remove it.
Ludovic
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
