Tony, Can you merge this. Regards, Santosh > -----Original Message----- > From: linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:linux-omap-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Shilimkar, Santosh > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:15 PM > To: Jarkko Nikula > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH] OMAP: sDMA: Correct the the > omap_request_dma_chain() signature > > ________________________________ > > From: Jarkko Nikula [mailto:jhnikula@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:06 PM > To: Shilimkar, Santosh > Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [PATCH] OMAP: sDMA: Correct the the > omap_request_dma_chain() signature > > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Shilimkar, Santosh > <santosh.shilimkar@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > Yor tow comments....I think I answered > both.....Just a correction you comment itself. > > > > > You mean callback gets lch instead of > chain_id as an argument? > > You mean callback **** returns *** lch instead > of chain_id as an argument? > > > > > I mean argument passed to the callback. Callback is > void so not returning anything. > > if (likely(dma_chan[ch].callback != NULL)) > dma_chan[ch].callback(ch, status, > dma_chan[ch].data); > > My ***return ** was from the dma user point of view and > not the fucntion return :). Anyway the point is callback > first argument is dma channel nubmer and not chain_id. So > User will get the channel number and not chain_id via callback. > -- 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
