On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:17:20PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote:
> On 11/8/2015 12:08 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> On 11/8/2015 12:08 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> >Sinan Kaya wrote:
> >>+ val = val & ~(MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS);
> >>+ val = val | (mgmtdev->max_write_request << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS);
> >>+ val = val & ~(MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK);
> >>+ val = val | (mgmtdev->max_read_request);
> >
> >val &= ~MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS;
> >val |= mgmtdev->max_write_request << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS;
> >val &= ~MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK;
> >val |= mgmtdev->max_read_request;
> >
> >>+static const struct of_device_id hidma_mgmt_match[] = {
> >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt", },
> >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", },
> >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", },
> >>+ {},
> >>+};
> >
> >I thought Rob said that he did NOT want to use version numbers in
> >compatible strings. And what's the difference between these three
> >versions anyway?
> >
>
> This was already discussed here.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/689
>
> The agreement was to use
The suggestion...
> compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0",
> "qcom,hidma-mgmt";
I don't really want to see 3 generic-ish strings.
> I'll be adding code for v1.1 specifically in the future.
Please drop "qcom,hidma-mgmt" altogether. It is already meaningless.
Then add the 1.1 compatible when you add the code for it. Hopefully you
all can decide on part number(s) by then.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
