From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: swarren@wwwdotorg.org (Stephen Warren) Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:15:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 11/31] dma: add channel request API that supports deferred probe In-Reply-To: <1384862421.14845.222.camel@smile> References: <1384548866-13141-1-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1384548866-13141-12-git-send-email-swarren@wwwdotorg.org> <1384766276.14845.155.camel@smile> <528A5170.3090809@wwwdotorg.org> <1384862421.14845.222.camel@smile> Message-ID: <528B9CAE.3040600@wwwdotorg.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/19/2013 05:00 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 10:42 -0700, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 11/18/2013 02:18 AM, Shevchenko, Andriy wrote: >>> On Fri, 2013-11-15 at 13:01 -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >>>> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> >>>>> Eventually, all drivers should be converted to this new API, the old API >>>>> removed, and the new API renamed to the more desirable name. >>> >>> I really would like to see more sensible and shorter names for the API >>> functions. >> >> I'm not sure if you're suggesting that you: >> >> a) Really want to API renaming I mention above to happen at some time. >> >> b) We need to pick a better name now, for the new API this patch >> introduces. If so, do you have any better suggestion? > > Sooner better, I think. > > Now only what I can propose is to change > dma_slave_request_channel_or_err() to dma_slave_request_chan(). The one downside I see with the name dma_slave_request_chan() is that it's very similar to the existing dma_request_slave_channel(); driver authors may well be confused which is which, and end up using the wrong one. That's why I added an explicit "_or_err" to the function name. Still, I can go for dma_slave_request_chan() if the dmaengine maintainers think it's the right choice; just let me know.