From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2012CC433E0 for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 06:01:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFDF02085B for ; Thu, 2 Jul 2020 06:01:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1593669684; bh=hi9Y9/0kmE7oL+s9W44L8V1BELNv8ne95GsOncSLQgc=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=K9pBeOju8tVJ2KRr2MdkApRaef3RN9E2yp3lmp16MDCSjOxT45oyIg1b3gCdl0M+U g0qQopbQx0S/MNDEec4pCD9v4A0TgzB6f9F/cTz8YUJhBnBbP2fQwZty5/zn001sy1 TdWttXBIyOgS6lSmNo3GbfYKhsXH1rxF+8sWH5Jw= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726084AbgGBGBU (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2020 02:01:20 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-f68.google.com ([209.85.208.68]:33647 "EHLO mail-ed1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725263AbgGBGBT (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jul 2020 02:01:19 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-f68.google.com with SMTP id h28so22353723edz.0; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 23:01:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=lh8nOJbCY3dntMrTsg/+G+LQq9DAGDc6JO+HAJfI85o=; b=Ce3r43SloDlJ5LMaa/k+5ABrs3d7Pu6Uu1Ug54Nd3Qhacy/JSAlpTRJ+4wfQKdzxE7 9Q79lYBylxeBXWSvI8zc0Dk+Ig3ooJoaaz6YmRUSTTInyfwheG7Hpf0FNI9w4cU41SPJ WfiRRbU+7PoYFdp6uj3tUEzaoPF8a7yAC7aVLdIrh6uSqx3ZQJgAFf847WG7HMiFcVCT PzrYvc3QY2IAcoyBi2J8o6q3NfKY9MrX8G/zwZZzuTNlYEIV5oCsgGVSCVeHyIx27eS0 YlgqDZRl5p/zs+09riQ1TA3OlKPIW2TQKI4B3CTMeQjXg5fUnkh3dtPPheImO/ALBU/K G6LQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532r4B7CnzoaYyazLLbTxkJher2slrBj8gnVtQaJdsc8p5Pl7T2v jqW6+CaPNR7KEi7j/E3l0X8= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytqNBKyu/7EesZQUeT1QVMje4jzUxwKQOO1ElwidZDiWnDP+YK1VCjC1i7ybpkImxk+ckfUg== X-Received: by 2002:a50:f9c9:: with SMTP id a9mr34533109edq.89.1593669677760; Wed, 01 Jul 2020 23:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kozik-lap ([194.230.155.195]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r17sm8046146edw.68.2020.07.01.23.01.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Wed, 01 Jul 2020 23:01:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2020 08:01:15 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Marek Szyprowski Cc: Rob Herring , Kukjin Kim , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Sylwester Nawrocki , Alim Akhtar , Chanwoo Choi , Pankaj Dubey Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] arm64: dts: exynos: Align DMA controller bus node name with dtschema Message-ID: <20200702060115.GB4175@kozik-lap> References: <20200629204442.17336-1-krzk@kernel.org> <20200629204442.17336-3-krzk@kernel.org> <3c1eb3fe-8eef-1f91-ff4e-3081a871fc80@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3c1eb3fe-8eef-1f91-ff4e-3081a871fc80@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: devicetree-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 09:34:52AM +0200, Marek Szyprowski wrote: > Hi Krzysztof, > > On 29.06.2020 22:44, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > AMBA is a bus so name the node with DMA controllers just as "bus" to fix > > dtschema warnings like: > > > > amba: $nodename:0: 'amba' does not match '^(bus|soc|axi|ahb|apb)(@[0-9a-f]+)?$' > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > > Do we really need a separate 'bus' for those DMA controllers? > > IMHO they are not different from the hw perspective from the other > devices available on the SoC. A separate bus is a historical thing, they > work fine when moved directly under the 'soc' node. The separate bus > only mimics the way Linux organizes its drivers. This comment affects > both ARM and ARM64. Good point, other boards keep them under SoC usually. Thanks for feedback. Best regards, Krzysztof