[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9882db7a-755b-84c9-b132-1839dea5e6b8@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:41:54 +0800
From: "Reddy, MallikarjunaX" <mallikarjunax.reddy@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Langer <tlanger@...linear.com>,
"dmaengine@...r.kernel.org" <dmaengine@...r.kernel.org>,
"vkoul@...nel.org" <vkoul@...nel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Shevchenko, Andriy" <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>,
"chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com" <chuanhua.lei@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kim, Cheol Yong" <Cheol.Yong.Kim@...el.com>,
"Wu, Qiming" <qi-ming.wu@...el.com>,
"malliamireddy009@...il.com" <malliamireddy009@...il.com>,
"peter.ujfalusi@...com" <peter.ujfalusi@...com>,
"Langer, Thomas" <thomas.langer@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/2] dt-bindings: dma: Add bindings for intel LGM SOC
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for the review, my comments inline.
On 10/28/2020 3:24 AM, Thomas Langer wrote:
> Hello Reddy,
>
> I think "Intel" should always be written with a capital "I" (like in the Subject, but except in the binding below)
OK.
>
>> + compatible:
>> + oneOf:
>> + - const: intel,lgm-cdma
>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma2tx
>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma1rx
>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma1tx
>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma0tx
>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma3
>> + - const: intel,lgm-toe-dma30
>> + - const: intel,lgm-toe-dma31
> Bindings are normally not per instance.
> What if next generation chip gets more DMA modules but has no other changes in the HW block?
> What is wrong with
> - const: intel,lgm-cdma
> - const: intel,lgm-hdma
> and extra attributes to define the rx/tx restriction (or what do it mean?)?
> From the driver code I saw that "toe" is also just of type "hdma" and no further differences in code are done.
We had a discussion on the same in the previous patches and Rob Herring
said Okay using Different compatibles.
below the snippet.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> + compatible:
>>> + anyOf:
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-cdma
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma2tx
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma1rx
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma1tx
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma0tx
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-dma3
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-toe-dma30
>>> + - const: intel,lgm-toe-dma31
>> Please explain why you need so many different compatible strings.
> This hw dma has 7 DMA instances.
> Some for datapath, some for memcpy and some for TOE.
> Some for TX only, some for RX only, and some for TX/RX(memcpy and ToE).
>
> dma TX/RX type we considered as driver specific data of each instance and
> used different compatible strings for each instance.
> And also idea is in future if any driver specific data of any particular
> instance we can handle.
>
> Here if dma name and type(tx or rx) will be accepted as devicetree
> attributes then we can move .name = "toe_dma31", & .type = DMA_TYPE_MCPY
> to devicetree. So that the compatible strings can be limited to two.
> intel,lgm-cdma & intel,lgm-hdma .
[Rob]
Different compatibles are okay if the instances are different and we
don't have properties to describe the differences.
For some of what you have in this binding, I think it should be part of
the consumer cells.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Best regards,
> Thomas
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists