于 2017年6月15日 GMT+08:00 上午11:54:08, Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@xxxxxxxxx> 写到: >On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:04:39AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:15:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: >> > > SoC info is in compatible, so there's no reason to make it a >property. >> > >> > that's why it would need to be optional for the SoC's that needs >these.. >> >> There's nothing optional about that behaviour, it's mandatory for the >> SoC that need it, and useless on the SoC that don't. > >And why should kernel put strings for each hw behaviour. I am expecting >DT >to tell me if this SoC is a special case or not and kernel shall handle >accordingly I don't think this kind of behavior should be described in DT. Rob, do you agree? > >> Plus, that would require changing the DT binding, which isn't >> something we can do. > >Any reason why bindings can't change..? I though this was support for >new >SoC... This is a behavior that exists on a SoC that is already supported (A23/A33). -- 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
