On 11/25/2013 12:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I suppose an alternative would be to remove that flag, and have the loop >> in of_dma_request_slave_channel() initially ignore any unregistered DMA >> controllers, and still continue to look through the property for any >> alternative controller, and return a channel from one if it is found. >> Then, at the very end of the function, we could always return >> -EPROBE_DEFER if any unregistered DMA controllers were found, otherwise >> return -ENODEV. That would keep compatible behaviour, but it would mean >> that device probe order would/could influence which dmas entry provided >> the channel, since some entries might be ignored based simply on >> timing/ordering of DMA controller registration. Is that acceptable? >> > > Yes, I think this option makes the most sense, and is just as > susceptible to probe order as the current implementation. OK great. Last two questions then: 1) Do you want me to revert the changes to acpi-dma.c, and simply handle the return value conversion inside __dma_request_slave_channel(). 2) What's the final call on the new API name? Just let me know on both - the changes are simple. Thanks. -- 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
