> On 14.01.2016, at 05:07, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 03:24:59PM +0100, Martin Sperl wrote: >>>> But that would be frowned upon, so I had to come up with the approach >>>> taken, which makes the following assumptions: >>> >>> DT was designed to move this info and hardcoding from kernel into >>> DT, so why cant we do that? >> We still need to be backwards-compatible - at least that is what >> everyone tells me, so I need to hard-code fallbacks for those values. > > IMO hard code for falling back is okay as that supports old cases and new > platforms use geric DT info and new devices can be supported generically, > please check with DT folks.. > >>>> * the DT maps only the interrupts that are assigned to the HW block >>>> * the driver knows about the number of DMA channels in HW >> that could be a DT property, yes. >>>> * the driver knows about the mapping of shared interrupts >>>> (11-14 share irq). >> OK - how would you define that "mapping" in a "sane" manner in the DT >> that allows us to have multiple such mappings in the future? > > You are hard coding the flags for each channel, we can pass this for each > channel in the interrupt configi, a flag share/none..? Please run this thru > DT experts and I am not one of them.. So here a “simple” approach with the following device tree addition (plus defaults): interrupts = <1 16>, /* dma 0 irq */ <1 17>, /* dma 1 irq */ ... <1 26>, /* dma 10 irq */ <1 27>, /* dma 11-14 irq */ <1 28>; /* dma all irq */ brcm,dma-channel-mask = <0x7f35>; /* new properties below - also the defaults */ brcm,dma-channel-shared-mask = <0x7800>; brcm,dma-shared-irq-index = <11>; Is this sufficient to move forward? Thanks, Martin P.s: this would also mean (for later patches): brcm,dma-lite-channel-mask = <0x7f00>;-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
