On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:49:43AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > Hi Rob, > > On 30/09/2020 12.14, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > > New binding document for > > Texas Instruments K3 Block Copy DMA (BCDMA). > > > > BCDMA is introduced as part of AM64. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@xxxxxx> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml | 183 ++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 183 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml > > new file mode 100644 > > index 000000000000..c84fb641738f > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml > > @@ -0,0 +1,183 @@ > > ... > > > + compatible: > > + enum: > > + - ti,am64-dmss-bcdma > > Would it be OK if I use ti,am64x-dmss-bcdma or should I stick with > am64-dmss-bcdma. 'ti,am654.*' was used pretty consistently, is this family different? > The TRM refers to the family as AM64x, but having the 'x' in the > compatible did not sounded right. We generally don't want wildcards, but if the last digit is just pinout or fusing differences, then it's fine IMO. Bottomline, just be consistent across all the compatible strings for this SoC. Rob
