On 14/11/2019 1.40, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
>> if (!is_polling(sdd)) {
>> /* Acquire DMA channels */
>> - sdd->rx_dma.ch = dma_request_slave_channel_reason(&pdev->dev,
>> - "rx");
>> + sdd->rx_dma.ch = dma_request_chan(&pdev->dev, "rx");
>
> I have a little concern here. We have two funcions
> 'dma_request_chan' and 'dma_request_channel' don't we end up
> making some confusion here?
>
> Wouldn't it make more sense renaming 'dma_request_chan' to
> 'dma_request_slave_channel_reason'?
The dma_request_channel() should go away. It was the old API before we
got the dma_slave_map for non DT (and non ACPI) platforms so we can get
rid of the filter function exports from DMA drivers to clients all over
the place.
I know there are users where they provide dummy filter function.
At the end the main API to request slave DMA channel should be
dma_request_chan()
For non slave channels (not HW triggered) we have dma_request_chan_by_mask()
Imoh the dma_request_slave_channel_compat() should also go away with time.
>
> Thanks,
> Andi
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
- Péter
Texas Instruments Finland Oy, Porkkalankatu 22, 00180 Helsinki.
Y-tunnus/Business ID: 0615521-4. Kotipaikka/Domicile: Helsinki
