Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753406Ab2JAQhJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:37:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:47338 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753112Ab2JAQhG (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:37:06 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 12:37:24 -0400 From: Matt Porter To: Vinod Koul Cc: Linux DaVinci Kernel List , Chris Ball , Russell King , Benoit Cousson , Arnd Bergmann , Linux Documentation List , Tony Lindgren , Devicetree Discuss , Mark Brown , Linux MMC List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Rob Landley , Dan Williams , Linux SPI Devel List , Linux OMAP List , Linux ARM Kernel List Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 10/13] spi: omap2-mcspi: dma_request_slave_channel() support for DT platforms Message-ID: <20121001163723.GN5641@beef> References: <1348152226-13588-1-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <1348152226-13588-11-git-send-email-mporter@ti.com> <20120920220931.GJ28835@atomide.com> <201209210816.01473.arnd@arndb.de> <20120921154247.GZ28835@atomide.com> <20120921183729.GI16522@beef> <1348738594.1648.9.camel@vkoul-udesk3> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1348738594.1648.9.camel@vkoul-udesk3> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1211 Lines: 29 On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 03:06:34PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Fri, 2012-09-21 at 14:37 -0400, Matt Porter wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 08:42:47AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > > Can't we come up with a version of dma_request_slave_channel that works > > > both ways for now: > > > > > > mcspi_dma->dma_rx = > > > dma_request_slave_channel_compat(mask, omap_dma_filter_fn, &sig, > > > &master->dev, mcspi_dma->dma_rx_ch_name); > > > ... > > > > > > Then it's just question of patching away two lines later on rather than > > > having to add all this if else to all the drivers first, then patching > > > it away again. > > > > I think that something like that is workable with the implementation > > simply checking for of_node to do the right thing. > Yes, I think it would be better to have common API but underneath two > implementations in transitional phase. Ok, I'll implement something for discussion in the v2 series. -Matt -- 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/