[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf__isc59YBS9=O+9ApSV62XuZ2nBAWKKD_K7i72P-yFg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:37:27 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>
Cc: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
dmaengine <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards dma_request_slave_chan()
On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:32 PM Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com> wrote:
> dma_request_slave_channel_reason() no longer have user in mainline, it
> can be removed.
>
> Advise users of dma_request_slave_channel() and
> dma_request_slave_channel_compat() to move to dma_request_slave_chan()
How? There are legacy ARM boards you have to care / remove before.
DMAengine subsystem makes a p*s off decisions without taking care of
(I'm talking now about dma release callback, for example) end users.
They will be scary for no reason.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists