On 16-07-18, 15:33, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 10:42:26PM +0530, Vinod wrote:
> > On 03-07-18, 14:32, Paul Cercueil wrote:
> >
> > > enum jz_version {
> > > + ID_JZ4740,
> > > ID_JZ4770,
> > > ID_JZ4780,
> > > };
> > > @@ -247,6 +248,7 @@ static void jz4780_dma_desc_free(struct virt_dma_desc *vdesc)
> > > }
> > >
> > > static const unsigned int jz4780_dma_ord_max[] = {
> > > + [ID_JZ4740] = 5,
> > > [ID_JZ4770] = 6,
> > > [ID_JZ4780] = 7,
> > > };
> > > @@ -801,11 +803,13 @@ static struct dma_chan *jz4780_of_dma_xlate(struct of_phandle_args *dma_spec,
> > > }
> > >
> > > static const unsigned int jz4780_dma_nb_channels[] = {
> > > + [ID_JZ4740] = 6,
> > > [ID_JZ4770] = 6,
> > > [ID_JZ4780] = 32,
> > > };
> >
> > I feel these should be done away with if we describe hardware in DT
>
> The compatible property can imply things like this.
So what is the general recommendation, let DT describe hardware
including version delta or use compatible to code that in driver?
Is it documented anywhere?
--
~Vinod
--
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
