On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/30/2015 04:51 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >>> +struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan(struct device *dev, const char *name) >>> +{ >>> + struct dma_device *device, *_d; >>> + struct dma_chan *chan = NULL; >>> + >>> + /* If device-tree is present get slave info from here */ >>> + if (dev->of_node) >>> + chan = of_dma_request_slave_channel(dev->of_node, name); >>> + >>> + /* If device was enumerated by ACPI get slave info from here */ >>> + if (ACPI_HANDLE(dev) && !chan) >> >> The preferable way is to use >> has_acpi_companion() instead of ACPI_HANDLE(). > > I have done this part based on the dma_request_slave_channel_reason(). Understood, though that function was implemented before has_acpi_companion() has been introduced. > Will switch to use the has_acpi_companion() for the next RFC. Good. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko -- 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