lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/3] dt-bindings: Add dma-channels for pdma device node
From
On Sun, 16 Jan 2022 17:35:27 PST (-0800), zong.li@sifive.com wrote:
> Add dma-channels property, then we can determine how many channels there
> by device tree, rather than statically defines it in PDMA driver

Maybe "statically defining it" is better here?

>
> Signed-off-by: Zong Li <zong.li@sifive.com>
> ---
> .../devicetree/bindings/dma/sifive,fu540-c000-pdma.yaml | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/sifive,fu540-c000-pdma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/sifive,fu540-c000-pdma.yaml
> index d32a71b975fe..3dbb8caefc17 100644
> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/sifive,fu540-c000-pdma.yaml
> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/sifive,fu540-c000-pdma.yaml
> @@ -34,6 +34,12 @@ properties:
> minItems: 1
> maxItems: 8
>
> + dma-channels:
> + description: For backwards-compatible, the default value is 4

Maybe "backwards-compatibility" is better here?

> + minimum: 1
> + maximum: 4
> + default: 4
> +
> '#dma-cells':
> const: 1
>
> @@ -50,6 +56,7 @@ examples:
> dma@3000000 {
> compatible = "sifive,fu540-c000-pdma";

IMO we should have a "sifive,pdma-1.0.0" (or whatever the versioning
scheme ended up being) here, in addition to the SOC-specific DT entry.
It's kind of odd to start extending the SOC-specific DT entry, as the
whole idea there is to let us have an out in case we find future
compatibility issues.

> reg = <0x3000000 0x8000>;
> + dma-channels = <4>;
> interrupts = <23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30>;
> #dma-cells = <1>;
> };

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-01-20 19:52    [W:0.111 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site