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
---
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html