[PATCHv3 2/4] dmaengine: dw_dmac: move to generic DMA binding
Arnd Bergmann
arnd at arndb.de
Sun Feb 17 10:28:34 EST 2013
On Saturday 16 February 2013, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > @@ -1836,6 +1825,12 @@ static int dw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >
> > dma_async_device_register(&dw->dma);
> >
> > + if (pdev->dev.of_node)
> > + err = of_dma_controller_register(pdev->dev.of_node,
> > + dw_dma_xlate, dw);
> > + if (err && err != -ENODEV)
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "could not register of_dma_controller\n");
>
> I believe we may make it as
> if (...of_node) {
> err = ...register();
> if (err...)
> dev_err();
> }
I thing the two are equivalent because we only get to the first if()
when err is 0. However, I agree that your version is a bit clearer,
so I'll change it.
> > --- a/drivers/dma/dw_dmac_regs.h
> > +++ b/drivers/dma/dw_dmac_regs.h
>
> > @@ -211,9 +212,15 @@ struct dw_dma_chan {
> > /* hardware configuration */
> > unsigned int block_size;
> > bool nollp;
> > + unsigned int request_line;
> > + struct dw_dma_slave slave;
> > +
>
> Do we really need an extra empty line here?
No, that was an accident.
> > /* configuration passed via DMA_SLAVE_CONFIG */
> > struct dma_slave_config dma_sconfig;
> > +
> > + /* backlink to dw_dma */
> > + struct dw_dma *dw;
>
> Seems it's not needed and came from rebase?
Probably. It certainly was not intentional.
Arnd
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list