On Fri, 6 Dec 2024 16:04:40 -0600 David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12/6/24 3:36 PM, David Lechner wrote: > > On 11/24/24 11:16 AM, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> On Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:18:49 -0600 > >> David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >>> Add a new devm_iio_dmaengine_buffer_setup_ext2() function to handle > >>> cases where the DMA channel is managed by the caller rather than being > >>> requested and released by the iio_dmaengine module. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: David Lechner <dlechner@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> Fresh read and I'm wondering if the lifetimes in here can be managed > >> more simply either by pushing the DMA channel get down, or dragging > >> the release up. Basically I'd like to see them at the same level > >> of nesting in the code. If it ends up being necessary to duplicate > >> more code that is fine if it makes this easier to reason about. > >> > > > > One option could be instead of introducing a 2nd function, change > > Oops. The new function is devm_ so would still need a 2nd function > but changing iio_dmaengine_buffer_setup_ext() to have basically > the same signature would still avoid the asymmetry. That sounds sensible. (though I've mostly forgotten the background ;) > > > the existing iio_dmaengine_buffer_setup_ext() to use the signature > > of the proposed devm_iio_dmaengine_buffer_setup_ext2(). There are > > only two users of these functions. So we could move the dma chan > > request/release out to the drivers for those. > > > > Otherwise, we can't completely get rid of the owns_chan bit. > >
