From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vinod.koul@intel.com (Vinod Koul) Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:24:08 +0530 Subject: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dmaengine: sun6i: make gate bit in sun8i's DMA engines a common quirk In-Reply-To: <20170614090439.rkdaoo3uqzjqwuxq@flea.lan> References: <20170605123348.26137-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20170605123348.26137-2-icenowy@aosc.io> <20170614083252.GK13020@localhost> <20170614084529.GL13020@localhost> <20170614090439.rkdaoo3uqzjqwuxq@flea.lan> Message-ID: <20170615035407.GM13020@localhost> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:04:39AM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 02:15:29PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote: > > > SoC info is in compatible, so there's no reason to make it a property. > > > > that's why it would need to be optional for the SoC's that needs these.. > > There's nothing optional about that behaviour, it's mandatory for the > SoC that need it, and useless on the SoC that don't. And why should kernel put strings for each hw behaviour. I am expecting DT to tell me if this SoC is a special case or not and kernel shall handle accordingly > Plus, that would require changing the DT binding, which isn't > something we can do. Any reason why bindings can't change..? I though this was support for new SoC... -- ~Vinod