[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130805055607.GC31469@rizhao-lap>
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2013 13:56:09 +0800
From: Richard Zhao <rizhao@...dia.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"vinod.koul@...el.com" <vinod.koul@...el.com>,
"djbw@...com" <djbw@...com>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] DMA: add help function to check whether dma controller
registered
On Sat, Aug 03, 2013 at 03:59:59AM +0800, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 12:04 AM, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > DMA client device driver usually needs to know at probe time whether
> > dma controller has been registered to deffer probe. So add a help
> > function of_dma_check_controller.
> >
> > DMA request channel functions can also used to check it, but they
> > are usually called at open() time.
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/dma/of-dma.c b/drivers/dma/of-dma.c
> > index e1c4d3b..b6828c1 100644
>
> > +int of_dma_check_controller(struct device *dev, const char *name)
>
>
> > + for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> > + if (of_dma_match_channel(np, name, i, &dma_spec))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + mutex_lock(&of_dma_lock);
> > + ofdma = of_dma_find_controller(&dma_spec);
> > + mutex_unlock(&of_dma_lock);
> > + of_node_put(dma_spec.np);
>
> Do we need to add the following here:
>
> if (ofdma)
> break
>
> To ensure that as soon as a successful match is found, the loop exits?
> Otherwise, if there are multiple providers for that name, and the first
> N are registered but the last isn't, this function will still return
> failure.
Right. Thanks.
>
> > + if (ofdma)
> > + return 0;
> > + else
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> That probably should be -EPROBE_DEFER?
>
> Although, what about differentiating between "entry not found by
> of_dma_match_channel" and "controller not yet probed"?
I thought it might be called in non-probe functions. If no people
against it, I'll change it to EPROBE_DEFER.
Thanks
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists