From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: dma: Remove unnecessary code Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:43:54 +0000 Message-ID: <201302041743.55029.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1359967675-624-1-git-send-email-padma.v@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1359967675-624-1-git-send-email-padma.v@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Padmavathi Venna Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, padma.kvr@gmail.com, sbkim73@samsung.com, broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com, kgene.kim@samsung.com, jassisinghbrar@gmail.com, vinod.koul@intel.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, jon-hunter@ti.com, boojin.kim@samsung.com, thomas.abraham@linaro.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Monday 04 February 2013, Padmavathi Venna wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c > index 71d58dd..ec0d731 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c > @@ -23,23 +23,15 @@ static unsigned samsung_dmadev_request(enum dma_ch dma_ch, > struct device *dev, char *ch_name) > { > dma_cap_mask_t mask; > - void *filter_param; > > dma_cap_zero(mask); > dma_cap_set(param->cap, mask); > > - /* > - * If a dma channel property of a device node from device tree is > - * specified, use that as the fliter parameter. > - */ > - filter_param = (dma_ch == DMACH_DT_PROP) ? > - (void *)param->dt_dmach_prop : (void *)dma_ch; > - > if (dev->of_node) > return (unsigned)dma_request_slave_channel(dev, ch_name); > else > return (unsigned)dma_request_channel(mask, pl330_filter, > - filter_param); > + (void *)dma_ch); > } This still looks wrong to me, because the pl330_filter function now tkes a struct dma_pl330_filter_args pointer argument, not dma_ch name. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:43:54 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: SAMSUNG: dma: Remove unnecessary code In-Reply-To: <1359967675-624-1-git-send-email-padma.v@samsung.com> References: <1359967675-624-1-git-send-email-padma.v@samsung.com> Message-ID: <201302041743.55029.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 04 February 2013, Padmavathi Venna wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c > index 71d58dd..ec0d731 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/dma-ops.c > @@ -23,23 +23,15 @@ static unsigned samsung_dmadev_request(enum dma_ch dma_ch, > struct device *dev, char *ch_name) > { > dma_cap_mask_t mask; > - void *filter_param; > > dma_cap_zero(mask); > dma_cap_set(param->cap, mask); > > - /* > - * If a dma channel property of a device node from device tree is > - * specified, use that as the fliter parameter. > - */ > - filter_param = (dma_ch == DMACH_DT_PROP) ? > - (void *)param->dt_dmach_prop : (void *)dma_ch; > - > if (dev->of_node) > return (unsigned)dma_request_slave_channel(dev, ch_name); > else > return (unsigned)dma_request_channel(mask, pl330_filter, > - filter_param); > + (void *)dma_ch); > } This still looks wrong to me, because the pl330_filter function now tkes a struct dma_pl330_filter_args pointer argument, not dma_ch name. Arnd