[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZiEIxq8dHxObrYZx@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 14:49:26 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Serge Semin <fancer.lancer@...il.com>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <vireshk@...nel.org>, Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Ilpo Järvinen <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...nel.org>, dmaengine@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] dmaengine: dw: Simplify max-burst calculation
procedure
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 11:35:39PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:11:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 07:28:58PM +0300, Serge Semin wrote:
..
> > > +static void dwc_verify_maxburst(struct dma_chan *chan)
>
> > It's inconsistent to the rest of _verify methods. It doesn't verify as it
> > doesn't return anything. Make it int or rename the function.
>
> Making it int won't make much sense since currently the method doesn't
> imply returning an error status. IMO using "verify" was ok, but since
> you don't see it suitable please suggest a better alternative. mend,
> fix, align?
My suggestion is (and was) to have it return 0 for now.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists