On Tuesday 17 January 2017 10:46 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> On 01/17/2017 05:20 PM, Alexandre Bailon wrote:
>
>> DT binding for the TI DA8xx/OMAP-L1x/AM17xx/AM18xx cppi41 dma controller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Bailon <abailon@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> .../devicetree/bindings/usb/da8xx-usb.txt | 42
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/da8xx-usb.txt
>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/da8xx-usb.txt
>> index ccb844a..aed3169 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/da8xx-usb.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/usb/da8xx-usb.txt
>> @@ -18,10 +18,26 @@ Required properties:
>>
>> - phy-names: Should be "usb-phy"
>>
>> + - dmas: specifies the dma channels
>> +
>> + - dma-names: specifies the names of the channels. Use "rxN" for receive
>> + and "txN" for transmit endpoints. N specifies the endpoint number.
>> +
>> Optional properties:
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> - vbus-supply: Phandle to a regulator providing the USB bus power.
>>
>> +DMA
>> +~~~
>> +- compatible: ti,da8xx-cppi41
>
> Almost missed this -- wildcards in this property are forbidden.
> We should use "ti,da830-cppi41" as a least common denominator.
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/submitting-patches.txt states:
"
5) The wildcard "<chip>" may be used in compatible strings, as in
the following example:
- compatible: Must contain '"nvidia,<chip>-pcie",
"nvidia,tegra20-pcie"' where <chip> is tegra30, tegra132, ...
"
I take this to mean that using wildcards to denote an SoC family on
which the same IP is present is okay to do. With that understanding, I
think using ti,da8xx-cppi41 is fine too. Although I have no objections
against using the more specific ti,da830-cppi41
Thanks,
Sekhar
--
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
