Hi Tony, On 5/7/21 10:54 PM, Grygorii Strashko wrote: > > > On 07/05/2021 17:36, Andreas Kemnade wrote: >> On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:45:45 +0530 >> Vignesh Raghavendra <vigneshr@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On 5/7/21 12:24 PM, Grygorii Strashko wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 06/05/2021 17:00, Vignesh Raghavendra wrote: >>>>> Convert i2c-omap.txt to YAML schema for better checks and >>>>> documentation. >>>>> >>>>> Following properties were used in DT but were not documented in txt >>>>> bindings and has been included in YAML schema: >>>>> 1. Include ti,am4372-i2c compatible >>>>> 2. Include dmas property used in few OMAP dts files >>>> >>>> The DMA is not supported by i2c-omap driver, so wouldn't be better to >>>> just drop dmas from DTBs to avoid confusions? >>>> It can be added later. >>>> >>> >>> Will do.. I will also send patches dropping dmas from dts that currently >>> have them populated. >>> >> hmm, we have >> - DO attempt to make bindings complete even if a driver doesn't >> support some >> features. For example, if a device has an interrupt, then include the >> 'interrupts' property even if the driver is only polled mode. >> >> in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/writing-bindings.rst >> Shouln't the dma stay there if the hardware supports it? Devicetree >> should describe the hardware not the driver if I understood things >> right. > > True. But my above statement is also valid - it introduces confusion > from user point of view. > More over, 'dmas' is not part of original binding and were randomly > added to some SoCs. > And it's much more easy to extend binding (in the future) then remove > something after. > > I leave it to Vignesh, Tony to decide. > What do you prefer here? Removing dmas from schema would mean I would have to delete dmas property from omap2/3 dtsi files that list dmas property today? Note that driver does not support DMA mode today. Regards Vignesh
