On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:34 AM Vinod <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> 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?
Compatible is the version. Looking at the above, the version or ID
isn't even stable.
> Is it documented anywhere?
Not really. It's a judgment call generally. Maybe # of DMA channels
should be a property because that is something most controllers have.
But you really have to define the property up front, not when the 2nd
version of h/w shows up with different properties.
To start defining guidelines, a couple of things come to mind:
- Define properties for parameters that vary from board to board (for one SoC).
- You can't add new required properties to existing bindings, so the
not present default must work for all existing compatibles (or you
need per compatible driver data).
- Bugs/quirks/errata should be handled by compatible, not adding a
property. Because bugs should be fixable without a dtb update and only
a kernel update.
Rob
