[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200204062118.GS2841@vkoul-mobl>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2020 11:51:18 +0530
From: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
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 03-02-20, 12:37, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> 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.
Can you elaborate issue you are seeing with dma_release callback?
--
~Vinod
Powered by blists - more mailing lists