Hi Maxime, On 08/09/17 15:39, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:14:52AM +0100, André Przywara wrote: >>> And obviously, while maintaining the stability of the binding of those >>> hundreds properties. >>> >>> Or, you can base all this on the compatible, and be done with it once >>> and for all. >> >> What I am after is to cover SoCs which *don't* have differences in their >> register layout, for instance A83T, H3, A64, R40. >> In an ideal world we could have reused the H3 compatible string, >> adjusting the number of channels for each SoC in the DT. >> >> So I see that having a generic compatible name will not fly, as we now >> have differences which should not be modelled by DT properties. >> But I still think we should try to cover those non-register differences >> (number of channels) with a DT property, to allow reusing the existing >> driver code whenever possible. As is stands with this series, the R40 >> support should just be a matter of: >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-r40-dma", >> "allwinner,sun50i-a64-dma"; > > I just suggested the exact same thing, and then saw your mail, so I > guess we have an agreement :) Yes, I was thinking so as well. Since my DeLorean is in the garage ;-) we have no other choice than doing so. My original suggestion for a generic name was based on my naive reading of the existing code, which *looked like* it would be all compatible. But as we know better now, this is the way to go. Merci, André -- 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
