On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:14:16AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> > @@ -269,7 +270,10 @@ static void pl011_dma_probe_initcall(struct
> > uart_amba_port *uap)
> > dma_cap_zero(mask);
> > dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, mask);
> >
> > - chan = dma_request_channel(mask, plat->dma_filter, plat->dma_tx_param);
> > + chan = dma_request_slave_channel_compat(mask,
> > + (plat) ? plat->dma_filter : NULL,
> > + (plat) ? plat->dma_tx_param : NULL,
> > + uap->port.dev, "tx");
> > if (!chan) {
> > dev_err(uap->port.dev, "no TX DMA channel!\n");
> > return;
>
> This suffers the same problem with your MMCI patch. If you're using DT and
> don't provide the DMA information, you get errors printed. That's not on
> for an optional driver feature, especially when that feature causes
> functional difficulties on various platforms and so is _purposely_ omitted.
How does that differ from using pdata and not passing DMA information?
--
Lee Jones
Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
