From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vinod Koul Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] dmaengine: Support for requesting channels preferring DMA domain controller Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 22:19:41 +0530 Message-ID: <20190912164941.GC4392@vkoul-mobl> References: <20190906141816.24095-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20190906141816.24095-4-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> <20190908121507.GN2672@vkoul-mobl> <0bd4d678-31be-bead-7591-0452b6fed5f2@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0bd4d678-31be-bead-7591-0452b6fed5f2@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Ujfalusi Cc: robh+dt@kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 09-09-19, 08:56, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > >> -struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan_by_mask(const dma_cap_mask_t *mask) > >> +struct dma_chan *dma_domain_request_chan_by_mask(struct device *dev, > >> + const dma_cap_mask_t *mask) > > > > should we really use dma_request_chan_by_mask() why not create a new api > > dma_request_chan_by_domain() and use that, it falls back to > > dma_request_chan_by_mask() if it doesnt find a valid domain! > > So: > struct dma_chan *dma_request_chan_by_domain(struct device *dev, > const dma_cap_mask_t *mask); Yeah that looks better to me :) -- ~Vinod