From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Gross Subject: Re: [Patch v6 1/2] dmaengine: qcom_bam_dma: Add device tree binding Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 10:30:53 -0600 Message-ID: <20140221163053.GA3102@qualcomm.com> References: <1392964986-5207-1-git-send-email-agross@codeaurora.org> <1392964986-5207-2-git-send-email-agross@codeaurora.org> <20140221092657.GD7541@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140221092657.GD7541@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: Vinod Koul , Dan Williams , "dmaengine@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 09:26:57AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 06:43:04AM +0000, Andy Gross wrote: > > Add device tree binding support for the QCOM BAM DMA driver. > > [snip] > > +Required properties: > > +- compatible: Must be "qcom,bam-v1.4.0" for MSM8974 V1 > > + Must be "qcom,bam-v1.4.1" for MSM8974 V2 > > This looks a bit odd. How about: > > - compatible: must contain: > * "qcom,bam-v1.4.0" for MSM8974 V1 > * "qcom,bam-v1.4.1" for MSM8974 V2 > Agreed. I'll fix that. > > +- reg: Address range for DMA registers > > +- interrupts: single interrupt for this controller > > This device only has a single interrupt? Or there's only one we care > about at the moment? > Yes only a single interrupt. I can remove the s. > > +- #dma-cells: must be <1> > > +- clocks: required clock > > +- clock-names: name of clock > > Either describe the _exact_ name this binding expects for any clocks > input, or get rid of clock-names. I would prefer the former. So then I'd use the full name in the driver file. That's fine. [snip] > > +Client: > > +Required properties: > > +- dmas: List of dma channel requests > > +- dma-names: Names of aforementioned requested channels > > Do we really need to describe the client binding? Do we not have a > generic DMA binding doc we can refer to? > Originally there was more information in the entry. It was pared down over time and I didn't go back to referencing the generic doc. I'll do this and that'll fix this and your next comment. [snip] -- sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation