On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 23:15, Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 07.05.2019 9:09, Baolin Wang пишет: > > Since we've introduced one device node parameter for > > __dma_request_channel(), > > thus change to the correct function prototype. > > > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.w...@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra20.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra20.c > > b/drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra20.c > > index 49ff017..e2571b6 100644 > > --- a/drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra20.c > > +++ b/drivers/soc/tegra/fuse/fuse-tegra20.c > > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ static int tegra20_fuse_probe(struct tegra_fuse *fuse) > > dma_cap_zero(mask); > > dma_cap_set(DMA_SLAVE, mask); > > > > - fuse->apbdma.chan = __dma_request_channel(&mask, dma_filter, NULL); > > + fuse->apbdma.chan = __dma_request_channel(&mask, dma_filter, NULL, > > NULL); > > if (!fuse->apbdma.chan) > > return -EPROBE_DEFER; > > > > > > 1) Kernel should be kept bisect'able by not having intermediate patches > that break compilation. Hence you should squash the changes into a > single patch. > > 2) Better to replace __dma_request_channel() with dma_request_channel() > since they are equal.
Good point. I'll change to use dma_request_channel() in next version if no other objections. Thanks. -- Baolin Wang Best Regards
