Hello!
On 1/18/2017 11:33 AM, Sekhar Nori 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.
It doesn't really follow. I repeat, x's are not allowed.
[...]
Thanks,
Sekhar
MBR, Sergei
--
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
