linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] spi: qup: Add DMA capabilities

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54FD6411.90401@metafoo.de>
Date:	Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:12:49 +0100
From:	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
To:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
CC:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
	Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@...aro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@...r.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@...eaurora.org>,
	Sagar Dharia <sdharia@...eaurora.org>,
	Daniel Sneddon <dsneddon@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] spi: qup: Add DMA capabilities

On 03/08/2015 01:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2015 08:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Applied, but why is there no devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason()?
>>>
>>> I suppose the answer would be "we have a lot of slightly different
>>> cases and we have to get rid of current mess with legacy API calls".
>>> The most problematic stuff now inside DMA slave subsystem is so called
>>> "filter function". It's a main impediment right now as I understand.
>>
>> dma_request_slave_channel_reason() is the sane API though and does not use
>> the filter functions. Adding a devm version of it seems reasonable.
>
> It would be dma_request_slave_channel() in the first place, but legacy
> stuff didn't allow to do that, so here we are. I wouldn't like the
> idea of creating devm_dma_* before we will have stable function names
> without legacy involving.
>

At some point when all callers dma_request_slave_channel() have been updated 
to use dma_request_slave_channel_reason(), the later might be renamed to the 
former. I don't see the problem with having to do the same for a 
devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason().

- Lars
--
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/