Re: [PATCH 2/5] dmaengine: qcom: gpi: document preferred SM6350 binding

Krzysztof Kozlowski
2022-10-17T21:45:07Z

On 17/10/2022 17:23, Richard Acayan wrote:
>> Devices with ee offset of 0x10000 should rather bind with SM6350
>> compatible, so the list will not unnecessarily grow for compatible
>> devices.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c | 7 ++++---
>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>> index f8e19e6e6117..061add832295 100644
>> --- a/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>> +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom/gpi.c
>> @@ -2286,13 +2286,14 @@ static int gpi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> }
>>
>> static const struct of_device_id gpi_of_match[] = {
>> - { .compatible = "qcom,sc7280-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x10000 },
>> { .compatible = "qcom,sdm845-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x0 },
>> { .compatible = "qcom,sm6350-gpi-dma", .data = (void *)0x10000 },
>> /*
>> - * Deprecated, devices with ee_offset = 0 should use sdm845-gpi-dma as
>> - * fallback and not need their own entries here.
>
> This comment is from the dependency series [1]. Why would we need to add it just
> to remove it here? I was not notified that the dependency was applied anywhere
> (except as a base for other series) so it's not set in stone. Let's just drop
> the original patch that this comment originates from to prevent needlessly
> adding and removing the same lines at once.

I don't remove the comment, I re-phrase it to be better suited for final
code.

Best regards,
Krzysztof