Hi, On 2025. 02. 03. 13:27, Alexander Dahl wrote:
+ if (!IS_ERR(chan)) + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, dmaenginem_release_channel, chan);Why not using dma_release_channel() directly here? What's the point of introducing dmaenginem_release_channel() further above?
I followed the existing practice, used by `dmaenginem_async_device_unregister()`. I suspect it was done like this because the devm callback function's signature takes a `void *` and not `struct dma_chan *`.
Bence
