RE: [PATCH] PPC4xx: ADMA separating SoC specific functions

[Tirumala Marri <tmarri@apm.com>]

> >
> > You definitely need to be able to resolve "used but not defined" and
> > "defined but not used" warnings before tackling a driver conversion
> > like this.  In light of this comment I wonder if it would be
> > appropriate to submit your original driver, that just duplicated
> > routines from the ppc440spe driver, to the -staging tree.  Then it
> > would be available for someone familiar with driver conversions to
> > take a shot at unifying.
> >
> > Greg, is this an appropriate use of -staging?
>
> Possibly, but I really don't like duplication if possible.  What's
> keeping this code from being fixed up now properly?

[Marri] Hello Greg, I am working on restructuring ppc4xx/adma.c driver
into
Common code and SoC specific code. This way I can add support for similar
DMA engines.
In this process I had to declare some Of the functions non static so that
I can suppress "defined but not used" and "used but not defined".


Here is what series of patches I planned to work on.

1. First set patches to re-arrange the code. Functionally no change except
Structured into different files.
2. Second set to rename the common functions which are shared between SoC
dma-engines.
3. Add support of new DMA engine for different SoC.

I am working on first patch set right now.


Regards,
Marri