From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] spi: qup: Add DMA capabilities
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:12:49 +0100
Message-ID: <54FD6411.90401@metafoo.de>
References: <1425463325-25805-1-git-send-email-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>	<20150307112109.GJ28806@sirena.org.uk>	<CAHp75VeYanNJrEyTtcxb5g5DB8=609nebgZm8zVAeJdmSgHjkQ@mail.gmail.com>	<54FC30BE.1070606@metafoo.de> <CAHp75Vd7+GxT01+X5u4n=tXdBu-gcmdS-AETu0yK6PWFfjzDEA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Stanimir Varbanov <stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-spi@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>,
	Andy Gross <agross@codeaurora.org>,
	Sagar Dharia <sdharia@codeaurora.org>,
	Daniel Sneddon <dsneddon@codeaurora.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Return-path: <linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd7+GxT01+X5u4n=tXdBu-gcmdS-AETu0yK6PWFfjzDEA@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-spi.vger.kernel.org

On 03/08/2015 01:20 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2015 08:43 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
>
>>>> Applied, but why is there no devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason()?
>>>
>>> I suppose the answer would be "we have a lot of slightly different
>>> cases and we have to get rid of current mess with legacy API calls".
>>> The most problematic stuff now inside DMA slave subsystem is so called
>>> "filter function". It's a main impediment right now as I understand.
>>
>> dma_request_slave_channel_reason() is the sane API though and does not use
>> the filter functions. Adding a devm version of it seems reasonable.
>
> It would be dma_request_slave_channel() in the first place, but legacy
> stuff didn't allow to do that, so here we are. I wouldn't like the
> idea of creating devm_dma_* before we will have stable function names
> without legacy involving.
>

At some point when all callers dma_request_slave_channel() have been updated 
to use dma_request_slave_channel_reason(), the later might be renamed to the 
former. I don't see the problem with having to do the same for a 
devm_dma_request_slave_channel_reason().

- Lars