linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 39/39] dma: cirrus: remove platform code

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: <1bbcd4e612a1577d83456a5c88ad633547e59e9b.camel@maquefel.me>
Date:   Mon, 11 Dec 2023 15:10:51 +0300
From:   Nikita Shubin <nikita.shubin@...uefel.me>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
        Alexander Sverdlin <alexander.sverdlin@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 39/39] dma: cirrus: remove platform code

Hello Andy!

On Wed, 2023-11-22 at 14:31 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 12:00:17PM +0300, Nikita Shubin wrote:
> > Remove DMA platform header, from now on we use device tree for dma
> 
> DMA
> 
> > clients.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +       if (device_is_compatible(chan->device->dev, "cirrus,ep9301-
> > dma-m2p"))
> > +               return true;
> > +
> > +       return !strcmp(dev_name(chan->device->dev), "ep93xx-dma-
> > m2p");
> 
> Haven't you introduced an inliner with the similar flow? Why not
> reuse it?

It's the same, i moved it from platform header file into driver itself,
as i am removing "include/linux/platform_data/dma-ep93xx.h" completely.

> 
> ...
> 
> > +/**
> > + * ep93xx_dma_chan_direction - returns direction the channel can
> > be used
> > + * @chan: channel
> > + *
> > + * This function can be used in filter functions to find out
> > whether the
> > + * channel supports given DMA direction. Only M2P channels have
> > such
> > + * limitation, for M2M channels the direction is configurable.
> 
> I believe
> 
>         scripts/kernel-doc -v -none -Wall ...
> 
> against this file (and maybe others!) will complain ("no return
> section"
> or alike).
> 
> > + */
> 

Agree, dropped doc style comment and converted it to simple comment, it
is internal to driver now, so no point putting it into docs.