From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanimir Varbanov Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] dmaengine: qcom: bam_dma: add controlled remotely dt property Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:05:18 +0300 Message-ID: <570525AE.7070700@linaro.org> References: <1459896982-30171-1-git-send-email-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> <1459896982-30171-4-git-send-email-stanimir.varbanov@linaro.org> <20160405234425.GD11586@vkoul-mobl.iind.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160405234425.GD11586@vkoul-mobl.iind.intel.com> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Vinod Koul , Stanimir Varbanov Cc: Rob Herring , Mark Rutland , Andy Gross , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Sinan Kaya , Pramod Gurav List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 04/06/2016 02:44 AM, Vinod Koul wrote: > On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:56:20AM +0300, Stanimir Varbanov wrote: >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/qcom_bam_dma.txt | 2 ++ >> drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c | 7 +++++++ > > The binding should be a separate patch.. I'm not sure, isn't this rule valid only when we introduce the binding document? But if you insist I can make a separate patch. > >> >> + bdev->controlled_remotely = of_property_read_bool(pdev->dev.of_node, >> + "qcom,controlled-remotely"); >> + > > we need some defaults here, how will this work with boards withe older DT. > if the introduced property missing from DT node the driver behavior is preserved. -- regards, Stan