[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191113234049.GA1249@jack.zhora.eu>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 01:40:49 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>
To: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Cc: broonie@...nel.org, radu_nicolae.pirea@....ro, shawnguo@...nel.org,
s.hauer@...gutronix.de, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org, andi@...zian.org,
ldewangan@...dia.com, thierry.reding@...il.com,
jonathanh@...dia.com, vkoul@...nel.org, linux-spi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
kgene@...nel.org, krzk@...nel.org, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/9] spi: s3c64xx: Use dma_request_chan() directly for
channel request
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'?
Thanks,
Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists