On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/19/2013 05:00 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 10:42 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 11/18/2013 02:18 AM, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote: >>>> On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 13:01 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >>>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Eventually, all drivers should be converted to this new API, the old API >>>>>> removed, and the new API renamed to the more desirable name. >>>> >>>> I really would like to see more sensible and shorter names for the API >>>> functions. >>> >>> I'm not sure if you're suggesting that you: >>> >>> a) Really want to API renaming I mention above to happen at some time. >>> >>> b) We need to pick a better name now, for the new API this patch >>> introduces. If so, do you have any better suggestion? >> >> Sooner better, I think. >> >> Now only what I can propose is to change >> dma_slave_request_channel_or_err() to dma_slave_request_chan(). > > The one downside I see with the name dma_slave_request_chan() is that > it's very similar to the existing dma_request_slave_channel(); driver > authors may well be confused which is which, and end up using the wrong > one. That's why I added an explicit "_or_err" to the function name. > Still, I can go for dma_slave_request_chan() if the dmaengine > maintainers think it's the right choice; just let me know. I think the problem with dma_slave_request_channel_or_err() is that it does not tell you what the function does or how it's different from the existing one. I think dma_slave_request_channel_defer() with a comment about what error value callers should be expecting to delineate a permanent error vs "try again later". -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
