Message-ID: <51F7E9D0.1080107@ti.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:59:04 +0530
From: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: <joelf@ti.com>
CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>,
        Benoit Cousson <benoit.cousson@linaro.org>,
        Balaji TK <balajitk@ti.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Jason Kridner <jkridner@beagleboard.org>,
        Mark Jackson <mpfj-list@newflow.co.uk>,
        Linux OMAP List <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MMC List <linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pantel Antoniou <panto@antoniou-consulting.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: EDMA: Fix clearing of unused list for DT DMA
 resources
References: <1374515989-7391-1-git-send-email-joelf@ti.com> <51F61359.1090309@ti.com> <51F73738.6080901@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F73738.6080901@ti.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1724
Lines: 42

On 7/30/2013 9:17 AM, Joel Fernandes wrote:

>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/common/edma.c b/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>> index a432e6c..765d578 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/common/edma.c
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/common/edma.c

>>> +	} else {
>>> +		for (; i < pdev->num_resources; i++) {
>>> +			if ((pdev->resource[i].flags & IORESOURCE_DMA) &&
>>> +			    (int)pdev->resource[i].start >= 0) {
>>> +				ctlr = EDMA_CTLR(pdev->resource[i].start);
>>> +				clear_bit(EDMA_CHAN_SLOT(
>>> +					  pdev->resource[i].start),
>>> +					  edma_cc[ctlr]->edma_unused);
>>> +			}
>>
>> So there is very little in common between OF and non-OF versions of this
>> function. Why not have two different versions of this function for the
>> two cases? The OF version can reside under the CONFIG_OF conditional
>> already in use in the file. This will also save you the ugly line breaks
>> you had to resort to due to too deep indentation.
> 
> Actually those line breaks are not necessary and wouldn't result in
> compilation errors. I was planning to drop them. I'll go ahead and split
> it out anyway, now that also the OF version of the function is going to
> be bit longer if we use the of_parse functions.
> 
> Thanks for your review,

It turns out, I gave a bad idea. What I suggested will break the case of
non-DT boot with CONFIG_OF enabled. So what you had was fine. May be
just return from "if (dev->of_node)" so you don't need to have an else
block and can save on the indentation.

Thanks,
Sekhar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/