On 11/30/2015 04:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 30 November 2015 15:45:33 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> const char *name);
>> struct dma_chan *dma_request_slave_channel(struct device *dev, const char *name);
>> +
>> +struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan(struct device *dev, const char *name);
>> +struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan_by_mask(const dma_cap_mask_t *mask);
>> +
>> void dma_release_channel(struct dma_chan *chan);
>> int dma_get_slave_caps(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dma_slave_caps *caps);
>> #else
>> @@ -1268,6 +1291,14 @@ static inline struct dma_chan *dma_request_slave_channel(struct device *dev,
>> {
>> return NULL;
>> }
>> +static inline struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan(struct device *dev)
>> +{
>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>> +}
>>
>
> The prototypes for dma_request_chan() don't match, otherwise looks good.
Aargh, the !CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE path...
Fixed for the next RFC
Thanks,
Péter
--
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
