On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 10:01:47AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > Hi, > > On 2018-08-06 06:28, Huang Shijie wrote: > It might be only me, but I like to keep the resource teardown in a > reverse order of their creation. If everything is devm then it is granted. Yes.
If everything is devm then it is granted.. > > In case of cppi4 it looks safe after reading in to the DMAengine core, > module core and platform core code. > > But does the removed three lines worth over the clarity of how the > module removal is proceeding? Please keep the driver as it is if you like the traditional way. :) The DMA driver's maintainer has the right to decide whether to use the dmaenginem_async_device_register or not. Thanks Huang Shijie
