On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 08:09:04AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23-03-22, 23:29, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
> > Reorder dmas and dma-names property for spi controller node to make it
> > compliant with bindings.
> >
> > Fixes: 6e8887f60f60 ("ARM: SPEAr13xx: Pass generic DW DMAC platform data from DT")
> > Signed-off-by: Kuldeep Singh <singh.kuldeep87k@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - Add fixes tag
> > - Remove 1/2 patch from series as it's not required
> > - v1 discussion link:
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/20220312180615.68929-2-singh.kuldeep87k@xxxxxxxxx/
> >
> > arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi | 5 ++---
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
> > index c87b881b2c8b..45f0b2a33e02 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
> > @@ -284,9 +284,8 @@ spi0: spi@e0100000 {
> > #size-cells = <0>;
> > interrupts = <0 31 0x4>;
> > status = "disabled";
> > - dmas = <&dwdma0 4 0 0>,
> > - <&dwdma0 5 0 0>;
> > - dma-names = "tx", "rx";
> > + dmas = <&dwdma0 5 0 0>, <&dwdma0 4 0 0>;
> > + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> > };
> >
> > rtc@e0580000 {
>
> Rob,
>
> I tried to ask this at V1 as well [1]. Why do we need a patch like
> this ? Isn't this a DT tooling issue, where it is asking for a fixed
> order of values ?
Fixed order of values is important in case of properties like
compatibles etc. In case of dma-names, yes order shouldn't matter here.
This patch is more of appeasing dtbs_check warning rather than fixing
something. It's safe to go with this patch.
I am not sure if there's a provision to exclude dma-names from fix
ordering checks. Rob can help here in providing better insights.
- Kuldeep
