From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752063AbdFODvc (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:51:32 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:62366 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751555AbdFODva (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jun 2017 23:51:30 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,342,1493708400"; d="scan'208";a="98145868" Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2017 09:24:08 +0530 From: Vinod Koul To: Maxime Ripard Cc: Icenowy Zheng , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Icenowy Zheng , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 1/2] dmaengine: sun6i: make gate bit in sun8i's DMA engines a common quirk Message-ID: <20170615035407.GM13020@localhost> References: <20170605123348.26137-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20170605123348.26137-2-icenowy@aosc.io> <20170614083252.GK13020@localhost> <20170614084529.GL13020@localhost> <20170614090439.rkdaoo3uqzjqwuxq@flea.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170614090439.rkdaoo3uqzjqwuxq@flea.lan> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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