On Wednesday 17 April 2013, Lee Jones wrote:

>  #ifdef CONFIG_DMA_ENGINE
> -static void mmci_dma_setup(struct mmci_host *host)
> +static void mmci_dma_setup(struct amba_device *dev,
> +                        struct mmci_host *host)
>  {
> +     struct device_node *np = dev->dev.of_node;
>       struct mmci_platform_data *plat = host->plat;
>       const char *rxname, *txname;
>       dma_cap_mask_t mask;
> +     const char *chan_name;
> +     int count, i;
> +     bool do_tx = false, do_rx = false;
>  
>       if (!plat || !plat->dma_filter) {
> -             dev_info(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "no DMA platform data\n");
> -             return;
> +             if (np) {
> +                     count = of_property_count_strings(np, "dma-names");
> +                     for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +                             of_property_read_string_index(np, "dma-names",
> +                                                           i, &chan_name);
> +                             if (strcmp(chan_name, "tx"))
> +                                     do_tx = true;
> +                             else if (strcmp(chan_name, "rx"))
> +                                     do_rx = true;
> +                     }
> +             } else {
> +                     dev_info(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "no DMA platform data\n");
> +                     return;
> +             }
>       }

This looks unnecessarily complex.

>       /* initialize pre request cookie */
> @@ -321,19 +338,21 @@ static void mmci_dma_setup(struct mmci_host *host)
>        * attempt to use it bidirectionally, however if it is
>        * is specified but cannot be located, DMA will be disabled.
>        */
> -     if (plat->dma_rx_param) {
> -             host->dma_rx_channel = dma_request_channel(mask,
> -                                                        plat->dma_filter,
> -                                                        plat->dma_rx_param);
> +     if (plat->dma_rx_param || do_rx) {
> +             host->dma_rx_channel = dma_request_slave_channel_compat(mask,
> +                                     (plat) ? plat->dma_filter : NULL,
> +                                     (plat) ? plat->dma_rx_param : NULL,
> +                                     &dev->dev, "rx");
>               /* E.g if no DMA hardware is present */
>               if (!host->dma_rx_channel)
>                       dev_err(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "no RX DMA channel\n");
>       }

Why not just do dma_request_slave_channel_compat() unconditionally here?
It's not an error for MMCI if that fails. If you want to keep the warning
in the case dma_rx_channel is provided by not working, you can do it like

        host->dma_rx_channel = dma_request_slave_channel(dev, "rx");
        if (!host->dma_rx_channel && plat->dma_rx_param) {
                host->dma_rx_channel = dma_request_channel(mask,
                                                           plat->dma_filter,
                                                           plat->dma_rx_param);
                ...
        }

        Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to