On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 06:34:56PM +0530, Jassi Brar wrote: > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Oleksij Rempel <o.rempel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Aishen, Jassie, > > > > i'm lost in this discussion. Please, as soon as I need to add some > > changes to my patches, notify me. Preferably on top for email. > > > I am ok with however you choose to implement, 8 unidirectional or 4 > bidirectional channels or whatever. > > We just can't have protocol specific s/w modes in the controller drivers. > > The best solution is to fix the SCU firmware. If that is _really_ > impossible, I provided a solution (3 cells work around). If you have a > better idea please feel free to propose and implement that. > > It will also help if you could share the user code of "scu-mode". If > there is no such code (and we know the driver doesn't respect the > "scu-mode" property) why do we even have that binding? Maybe drop it. Tomorrow I have a time slot to address your generic iMX MU suggestions. So, what is better, uni- or bi-directional channels? Should I implement *all* (4TX+FIFO, 4RX+FIFO, 4TX-simple, 4RX-simple) channels in this run? If yes, how should it be reflected in DT? - 1 cell: &mu [0-15] - 2 cells: &mu [0-7] [TX,RX] - 3 cells: &mu [0-4] [FIFO,NOFIFO] [TX,RX] -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
