linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 05/14] dmaengine: dma-jz4780: Add support for the JZ4740 SoC

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180718052713.GH3219@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:57:13 +0530
From:   Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
Cc:     Paul Cercueil <paul@...pouillou.net>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
        Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
        James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
        Zubair Lutfullah Kakakhel <Zubair.Kakakhel@...tec.com>,
        Mathieu Malaterre <malat@...ian.org>,
        Daniel Silsby <dansilsby@...il.com>,
        "open list:DMA GENERIC OFFLOAD ENGINE SUBSYSTEM" 
        <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MIPS <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] dmaengine: dma-jz4780: Add support for the JZ4740
 SoC

On 17-07-18, 11:40, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:34 AM Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 16-07-18, 15:33, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:42:26PM +0530, Vinod wrote:
> > > > On 03-07-18, 14:32, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >  enum jz_version {
> > > > > + ID_JZ4740,
> > > > >   ID_JZ4770,
> > > > >   ID_JZ4780,
> > > > >  };
> > > > > @@ -247,6 +248,7 @@ static void jz4780_dma_desc_free(struct virt_dma_desc *vdesc)
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >  static const unsigned int jz4780_dma_ord_max[] = {
> > > > > + [ID_JZ4740] = 5,
> > > > >   [ID_JZ4770] = 6,
> > > > >   [ID_JZ4780] = 7,
> > > > >  };
> > > > > @@ -801,11 +803,13 @@ static struct dma_chan *jz4780_of_dma_xlate(struct of_phandle_args *dma_spec,
> > > > >  }
> > > > >
> > > > >  static const unsigned int jz4780_dma_nb_channels[] = {
> > > > > + [ID_JZ4740] = 6,
> > > > >   [ID_JZ4770] = 6,
> > > > >   [ID_JZ4780] = 32,
> > > > >  };
> > > >
> > > > I feel these should be done away with if we describe hardware in DT
> > >
> > > The compatible property can imply things like this.
> >
> > So what is the general recommendation, let DT describe hardware
> > including version delta or use compatible to code that in driver?
> 
> Compatible is the version. Looking at the above, the version or ID
> isn't even stable.
> 
> > Is it documented anywhere?
> 
> Not really. It's a judgment call generally. Maybe # of DMA channels
> should be a property because that is something most controllers have.
> But you really have to define the property up front, not when the 2nd
> version of h/w shows up with different properties.
> 
> To start defining guidelines, a couple of things come to mind:
> 
> - Define properties for parameters that vary from board to board (for one SoC).
> - You can't add new required properties to existing bindings, so the
> not present default must work for all existing compatibles (or you
> need per compatible driver data).
> - Bugs/quirks/errata should be handled by compatible, not adding a
> property. Because bugs should be fixable without a dtb update and only
> a kernel update.

Sounds good to me, thanks for the guide.

-- 
~Vinod