Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200203101806.2441-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200203101806.2441-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 12:37:27 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75Vf__isc59YBS9=O+9ApSV62XuZ2nBAWKKD_K7i72P-yFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] dmaengine: Stear users towards dma_request_slave_chan()
To:     Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
Cc:     Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>,
        dmaengine <dmaengine@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 12:32 PM Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com> wrote:

> dma_request_slave_channel_reason() no longer have user in mainline, it
> can be removed.
>
> Advise users of dma_request_slave_channel() and
> dma_request_slave_channel_compat() to move to dma_request_slave_chan()

How? There are legacy ARM boards you have to care / remove before.
DMAengine subsystem makes a p*s off decisions without taking care of
(I'm talking now about dma release callback, for example) end users.
They will be scary for no reason.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko