Hi,

On 2025. 02. 03. 13:27, Alexander Dahl wrote:

quoted

+	if (!IS_ERR(chan))
+		ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, dmaenginem_release_channel, chan);

Why not using dma_release_channel() directly here?  What's the point
of introducing dmaenginem_release_channel() further above?

I followed the existing practice, used by 
`dmaenginem_async_device_unregister()`. I suspect it was done like this 
because the devm callback function's signature takes a `void *` and not 
`struct dma_chan *`.

Bence