Re: [PATCH 1/1] dmaengine: change dmaengine_get_unmap_data() first arg to dma_chan

[Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>]

On 10/9/26 12:02 PM, Frank Li wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2026 at 09:19:43AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10/9/26 2:43 AM, Vinod Koul wrote:
>>> On 22-09-26, 16:09, Dave Jiang wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9/22/26 11:45 AM, Frank.Li@oss.nxp.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Replace the struct device *dev argument with struct dma_chan *chan so
>>>>> callers do not need to reach into the dma_device internals to obtain
>>>>> the device pointer.  The implementation now derives the device via
>>>>> dmaengine_get_dma_device(chan), which correctly handles the per-channel
>>>>> IOMMU mapping case.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prepare to make dma_device private and make dmaengine API consistent.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Frank Li <Frank.Li@nxp.com>
>>>>
>>>> For the NTB bits:
>>>> Acked-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  crypto/async_tx/async_memcpy.c      | 4 ++--
>>>>>  crypto/async_tx/async_pq.c          | 4 ++--
>>>>>  crypto/async_tx/async_raid6_recov.c | 4 ++--
>>>>>  crypto/async_tx/async_xor.c         | 8 ++++----
>>>>
>>>> Maybe one day Dan's wishes will become true and someone will finally deprecate async_tx....
>>>
>>> Does Intel still have use it. I am looking at fixing the names and we
>>> can drop async_tx completely...?
>>>
>> I don't think so. Not since ioatdma days. Dan has talked about wanting to remove async_tx for quite a few years now. No idea if there are ARM dma devices that still use that or not.
> 
> Maybe we can create patch to skip build it firstly, let's see if there are
> really user.

There is a way to mark something going towards deprecation in KCONFIG right?

DJ

> 
> Frank