On Monday 04 February 2013, Padmavathi Venna wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c
> index 71d58dd..ec0d731 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c
> @@ -23,23 +23,15 @@ static unsigned samsung_dmadev_request(enum dma_ch dma_ch,
> struct device *dev, char *ch_name)
> {
> dma_cap_mask_t mask;
> - void *filter_param;
>
> dma_cap_zero(mask);
> dma_cap_set(param->cap, mask);
>
> - /*
> - * If a dma channel property of a device node from device tree is
> - * specified, use that as the fliter parameter.
> - */
> - filter_param = (dma_ch == DMACH_DT_PROP) ?
> - (void *)param->dt_dmach_prop : (void *)dma_ch;
> -
> if (dev->of_node)
> return (unsigned)dma_request_slave_channel(dev, ch_name);
> else
> return (unsigned)dma_request_channel(mask, pl330_filter,
> - filter_param);
> + (void *)dma_ch);
> }
This still looks wrong to me, because the pl330_filter function now tkes
a struct dma_pl330_filter_args pointer argument, not dma_ch name.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
