On 11/30/2015 04:09 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 30 November 2015 15:45:33 Peter Ujfalusi wrote: >> const char *name); >> struct dma_chan *dma_request_slave_channel(struct device *dev, const char *name); >> + >> +struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan(struct device *dev, const char *name); >> +struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan_by_mask(const dma_cap_mask_t *mask); >> + >> void dma_release_channel(struct dma_chan *chan); >> int dma_get_slave_caps(struct dma_chan *chan, struct dma_slave_caps *caps); >> #else >> @@ -1268,6 +1291,14 @@ static inline struct dma_chan *dma_request_slave_channel(struct device *dev, >> { >> return NULL; >> } >> +static inline struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan(struct device *dev) >> +{ >> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> +} >> > > The prototypes for dma_request_chan() don't match, otherwise looks good. Aargh, the !CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE path... Fixed for the next RFC Thanks, Péter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-spi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html