From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: afaerber@suse.de (=?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?=) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:03:32 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Fix Xilinx VDMA specification In-Reply-To: <6067bede14b9421fa87db96bdc66dc66@BN1AFFO11FD040.protection.gbl> References: <1415800277-6817-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <6067bede14b9421fa87db96bdc66dc66@BN1AFFO11FD040.protection.gbl> Message-ID: <5463A0F4.6060300@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Am 12.11.2014 um 16:57 schrieb S?ren Brinkmann: > On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 02:51PM +0100, Andreas F?rber wrote: >> The specification requires xlnx,data-width, but example and driver use >> xlnx,datawidth. Change the specification to match the implementation. > > Isn't this the wrong way around? The bindings are considered API, so > shouldn't the driver be fixed to match the spec? In theory, patch review should've never let the two differ... ;) It's not my driver, so I fixed the perceived inconsistency the least invasive way; Michal and Srikanth seemed to concur at the time. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4620261/ > Are there already dts files out there using either of these options? In upstream, no. microblaze and virtex440 use a xlnx,include-datawidth-matching-0 property as precedence for the spelling, whereas there is an fsl,data-width and an unused msix-data-width. Downstream, yes: Beyond my own patch derived from the Parallella tree, there's some in the ADI tree. None in the Xilinx tree on quick check. I haven't encountered any using the documented xlnx,data-width - but this patch was authored pre 3.17, haven't ran a full Web search again. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend?rffer; HRB 21284 AG N?rnberg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] Documentation: devicetree: Fix Xilinx VDMA specification Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 19:03:32 +0100 Message-ID: <5463A0F4.6060300@suse.de> References: <1415800277-6817-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <6067bede14b9421fa87db96bdc66dc66@BN1AFFO11FD040.protection.gbl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RV2nqRrBwfXN2aQKKTmifqoqvfstFLKwx" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6067bede14b9421fa87db96bdc66dc66@BN1AFFO11FD040.protection.gbl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: =?UTF-8?B?U8O2cmVuIEJyaW5rbWFubg==?= Cc: Vinod Koul , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Michal Simek , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , "OPEN FIRMWARE AND..." , LKML , Srikanth Thokala , Lars-Peter Clausen List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --RV2nqRrBwfXN2aQKKTmifqoqvfstFLKwx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Am 12.11.2014 um 16:57 schrieb S=C3=B6ren Brinkmann: > On Wed, 2014-11-12 at 02:51PM +0100, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >> The specification requires xlnx,data-width, but example and driver use= >> xlnx,datawidth. Change the specification to match the implementation. >=20 > Isn't this the wrong way around? The bindings are considered API, so > shouldn't the driver be fixed to match the spec? In theory, patch review should've never let the two differ... ;) It's not my driver, so I fixed the perceived inconsistency the least invasive way; Michal and Srikanth seemed to concur at the time. https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/4620261/ > Are there already dts files out there using either of these options? In upstream, no. microblaze and virtex440 use a xlnx,include-datawidth-matching-0 property as precedence for the spelling, whereas there is an fsl,data-width and an unused msix-data-widt= h. Downstream, yes: Beyond my own patch derived from the Parallella tree, there's some in the ADI tree. None in the Xilinx tree on quick check. I haven't encountered any using the documented xlnx,data-width - but this patch was authored pre 3.17, haven't ran a full Web search again. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 21284 AG N=C3=BC= rnberg --RV2nqRrBwfXN2aQKKTmifqoqvfstFLKwx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJUY6D0AAoJEPou0S0+fgE/GIcP/A4aBSqMjpJYvawAVHdS4dp3 fGqSxhVoLj8tVXkraU6ayrT8NH8vPIP1zPPRuk9Cab5/XLNNqflnvpFIk5EhGU7j tcdLM3qB4jc/vCwLeNVyp/BVJEqA+t0nMqaiZVHmLP8QEG5Wnaflo+LNx6bASjZj kSoxOKJWchuGD60YnHwbMTMe69tJn2ahdls7JWHVwInUUfFuAO4m0RMKuDYkiJbo yBxsiR5eF7D5uOQ28bNmYFgt1iCnMcUGdoqVlpV86Gzq/e/ctnwM/LlnXd9N5DY9 93asvp9HT+5Tpq4+dznNcuHpQpVTDmqDSlth5jvt+RKYZvRrW0P5fLTdRsfp1y0Q MS9M0Y7ZTSnEUAGmED4QyjyiW2Y/88foGq07HdpdKwzuoA3Ouik41HFbCau8gTFL +eb+gaRTbS7MReG+JbFyts+jebE5TFmswgNQQl74VvoBzxj6YV3olHqKr7jcui09 3AavU704pDK1btucqZ98qGiOHcEvGVHh/YbnqUxBNcc7SU/KqJBW/xw1//5pd8Zm ZJttGg+6xrMN9KvMf8xvSqIH4rSohjo3GtuySCMHRoaaLHkxW6OkK5GGBRFhLA5P 2PAyI2MB1q+fEfmIit6Z28N4gvSjFzn+U9s/sX+0keAYx9KEQnrSx3mcL1EsaM0K oPvXPHsQIt4/qVB6HcwB =aJgM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --RV2nqRrBwfXN2aQKKTmifqoqvfstFLKwx--