On Fri, May 02, 2014 at 12:35:21AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 01 May 2014 12:11:25 Mark Brown wrote: > > Why is the fix for this not to ensure that s3c24xx always enables the > > DMA controller - how likely is it that it would be sane to build a > > kernel without DMA after all? > S3C24XX_DMA is only needed for ASoC and for s3cmci. The latter > uses 'depends on S3C24XX_DMA'. arch/arm/configs/tct_hammer_defconfig > is an example of a configuration that does not include DMA because > it uses neither of the two drivers. I'm having a hard time caring about that, the arch code can always do an "if whatever". If that board is what I think it actually does have audio on it, either the defconfig was never updated or the driver wasn't merged into mainline. > How about the patch below? I guess (modulo the issues below). Killing the wrapper and making the existing selection of DMA support actually select DMA support does avoid the redundancy. > diff --git a/sound/soc/samsung/ac97.c b/sound/soc/samsung/ac97.c > index 76b072b..28fe097 100644 > --- a/sound/soc/samsung/ac97.c > +++ b/sound/soc/samsung/ac97.c > @@ -253,10 +253,7 @@ static int s3c_ac97_trigger(struct snd_pcm_substream *substream, int cmd, > > writel(ac_glbctrl, s3c_ac97.regs + S3C_AC97_GLBCTRL); > > - if (!dma_data->ops) > - dma_data->ops = samsung_dma_get_ops(); > - > - dma_data->ops->started(dma_data->channel); > + s3c2410_dma_ctrl(dma_data->channel, S3C2410_DMAOP_STARTED); > > return 0; > } This code is broken in general - at least s3c64xx has AC'97. That's broken anyway though.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
