On 9/18/22 2:19 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 18/09/2022 09:11, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
As a user recently noted, the qcom,bam-dma binding document
describes the BAM DMA node incorrectly.
It's a bit confusing - what is exactly incorrectly described by binding?
You did not make any changes to the binding itself...
Sorry for the late reply. Your comment just skipped through my mail
filters :(
I understand your point. I should have made the commit message more
descriptive (infact now I look at it, I see some key words are actually
missing from the commit message).
The commit message should infact read as:
"As a user recently noted, the qcom,bam-dma binding document
describes the BAM DMA node *in the example section* incorrectly. Fix the
same by making it consistent with the node present inside 'qcom-msm8974'
dts file, *namely the 'reg' and 'interrupt' values which are incorrect.
While looking at the example in the binding document, the user noted
that its incorrect when compared with both the 'msm8974' upstream as
well as downstream dts files.*
I hope the bold text (which I added above), helps clear the purpose of
the patch better.
Please let me know your views.
Thanks,
Bhupesh
