On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/30/2015 04:51 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> +struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan(struct device *dev, const char *name)
>>> +{
>>> + struct dma_device *device, *_d;
>>> + struct dma_chan *chan = NULL;
>>> +
>>> + /* If device-tree is present get slave info from here */
>>> + if (dev->of_node)
>>> + chan = of_dma_request_slave_channel(dev->of_node, name);
>>> +
>>> + /* If device was enumerated by ACPI get slave info from here */
>>> + if (ACPI_HANDLE(dev) && !chan)
>>
>> The preferable way is to use
>> has_acpi_companion() instead of ACPI_HANDLE().
>
> I have done this part based on the dma_request_slave_channel_reason().
Understood, though that function was implemented before
has_acpi_companion() has been introduced.
> Will switch to use the has_acpi_companion() for the next RFC.
Good.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
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
