On 12/03/2015 05:38 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2015 16:33:12 Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/edma.c b/drivers/dma/edma.c
>> index 0675e268d577..46b305ea0d21 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/edma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/edma.c
>> @@ -2297,6 +2297,12 @@ static int edma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> edma_set_chmap(&ecc->slave_chans[i], ecc->dummy_slot);
>> }
>>
>> + if (info->slave_map) {
>> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.map = info->slave_map;
>> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.mapcnt = info->slavecnt;
>> + ecc->dma_slave.filter_map.filter_fn = edma_filter_fn;
>> + }
>> +
>>
>
> Just a minor comment here: I think all three assignments can be done
> unconditionally.
True.
> As I mentioned before, I'd also remove 'struct dma_filter'
> and put the three members in struct dma_device directly. In fact, the
> filter function can go with the other function pointers for consistency.
I just like to keep things in one place ;)
I don't have strong stand on keeping the intermediate 'struct dma_filter'
Let's hear from Vinod regarding to this
--
Péter
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
