Felipe Balbi wrote:
From: Arnaud Mandy <ext-arnaud.2.mandy@xxxxxxxxx>
moving use_dma parameter to beginning of the file
This patch is not just about moving the parameter...
Signed-off-by: Arnaud Mandy <ext-arnaud.2.mandy@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c | 13 +++++++------
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
index 3a61ddb..2838059 100644
--- a/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
+++ b/drivers/usb/musb/musb_core.c
@@ -114,6 +114,13 @@
#define TA_WAIT_BCON(m) max_t(int, (m)->a_wait_bcon,
OTG_TIME_A_WAIT_BCON)
+#ifndef CONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY
+static int __initdata use_dma = 1;
+#else
+static int __initdata use_dma;
Given the fact that DMA drivers are only enabled if
CONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY=n, this parameter's existance when
CONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY=y doesn't make sense since no DMA driver would be
compiled in this case. Hence I'm inclined to NAK this patch.
good catch. The condition is wrong.
Sigh, it seems you misundertood me. The condition was right, there
just
yes... it seems so, sorry for that.
shouldn't have been the #else branch and the whole parameter declaration
should be enclosed into #ifndef. Your new patch is wrong as it now
disables
DMA by default when CONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY=n and enables it when
CONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY=y (where it doesn't make sence).
the idea of having that parameter always there is that even though you
build musb without dma, you can still enable it by passing a module
parameter.
But do you now build the DMA drivers regardless of CONFIG_MUSB_PIO_ONLY.
We wanted to get rid of the ifdeferry.
That would be nice, yes. I just don't get how this particular change
will help to get rid of the driver specific #ifdef'ery (if you meant it).
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
