On 07/30/2013 11:29 AM, Sekhar Nori wrote:
> On 7/30/2013 9:17 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>>> index a432e6c..765d578 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + for (; i < pdev->num_resources; i++) {
>>>> + if ((pdev->resource[i].flags & IORESOURCE_DMA) &&
>>>> + (int)pdev->resource[i].start >= 0) {
>>>> + ctlr = EDMA_CTLR(pdev->resource[i].start);
>>>> + clear_bit(EDMA_CHAN_SLOT(
>>>> + pdev->resource[i].start),
>>>> + edma_cc[ctlr]->edma_unused);
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> So there is very little in common between OF and non-OF versions of this
>>> function. Why not have two different versions of this function for the
>>> two cases? The OF version can reside under the CONFIG_OF conditional
>>> already in use in the file. This will also save you the ugly line breaks
>>> you had to resort to due to too deep indentation.
>>
>> Actually those line breaks are not necessary and wouldn't result in
>> compilation errors. I was planning to drop them. I'll go ahead and split
>> it out anyway, now that also the OF version of the function is going to
>> be bit longer if we use the of_parse functions.
>>
>> Thanks for your review,
>
> It turns out, I gave a bad idea. What I suggested will break the case of
> non-DT boot with CONFIG_OF enabled. So what you had was fine. May be
> just return from "if (dev->of_node)" so you don't need to have an else
> block and can save on the indentation.>
Ok, sure. I will go ahead and return from the if block.
Thanks,
-Joel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
