From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tabi Timur-B04825 Subject: Re: Is there a binding for IORESOURCE_DMA population? Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:55:41 +0000 Message-ID: <4E218A4C.8000603@freescale.com> References: <20110715163254.GG1840@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <201107152011.41546.arnd@arndb.de> <20110716075748.GI1840@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net> <201107161409.46719.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201107161409.46719.arnd-r2nGTMty4D4@public.gmane.org> Content-Language: en-US Content-ID: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Guo Shawn-R65073 , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Right, this is what I had in mind. I think this is reasonable. > If you need so many channels, the device tree will be huge already, > so this doesn't add that much bloat either. I'm not sure I agree. It seems that specifying nodes for each DMA channel (virtual or physical) is meaningless because the only property in the node is the "reg", which is really just a cell-index in disguise. My vote is to have a node only for the DMA engine, and let the DMA handle the virtual and physical channels internally. -- Timur Tabi Linux kernel developer at Freescale