Reorder dmas and dma-names property for spi controller node to make it
compliant with bindings.
Fixes: 6e8887f60f60 ("ARM: SPEAr13xx: Pass generic DW DMAC platform data from DT")
Signed-off-by: Kuldeep Singh <[email protected]>
---
v2:
- Add fixes tag
- Remove 1/2 patch from series as it's not required
- v1 discussion link:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/[email protected]/
arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi | 5 ++---
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
index c87b881b2c8b..45f0b2a33e02 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
@@ -284,9 +284,8 @@ spi0: spi@e0100000 {
#size-cells = <0>;
interrupts = <0 31 0x4>;
status = "disabled";
- dmas = <&dwdma0 4 0 0>,
- <&dwdma0 5 0 0>;
- dma-names = "tx", "rx";
+ dmas = <&dwdma0 5 0 0>, <&dwdma0 4 0 0>;
+ dma-names = "rx", "tx";
};
rtc@e0580000 {
--
2.25.1
On 23-03-22, 23:29, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
> Reorder dmas and dma-names property for spi controller node to make it
> compliant with bindings.
>
> Fixes: 6e8887f60f60 ("ARM: SPEAr13xx: Pass generic DW DMAC platform data from DT")
> Signed-off-by: Kuldeep Singh <[email protected]>
> ---
> v2:
> - Add fixes tag
> - Remove 1/2 patch from series as it's not required
> - v1 discussion link:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-devicetree/[email protected]/
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
> index c87b881b2c8b..45f0b2a33e02 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/spear13xx.dtsi
> @@ -284,9 +284,8 @@ spi0: spi@e0100000 {
> #size-cells = <0>;
> interrupts = <0 31 0x4>;
> status = "disabled";
> - dmas = <&dwdma0 4 0 0>,
> - <&dwdma0 5 0 0>;
> - dma-names = "tx", "rx";
> + dmas = <&dwdma0 5 0 0>, <&dwdma0 4 0 0>;
> + dma-names = "rx", "tx";
> };
>
> rtc@e0580000 {
Rob,
I tried to ask this at V1 as well [1]. Why do we need a patch like
this ? Isn't this a DT tooling issue, where it is asking for a fixed
order of values ?
--
viresh
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
On 25-03-22, 10:11, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 2:58 AM Viresh Kumar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 24-03-22, 11:55, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
> > > Fixed order of values is important in case of properties like
> > > compatibles etc. In case of dma-names, yes order shouldn't matter here.
> > >
> > > This patch is more of appeasing dtbs_check warning rather than fixing
> > > something.
> >
> > Exactly my point. We have seen similar type of issues with other tools, like
> > coccinelle, earlier and such patches were rejected as the kernel was just fine
> > and tooling needs to be fixed.
> >
> > > It's safe to go with this patch.
> > > I am not sure if there's a provision to exclude dma-names from fix
> > > ordering checks. Rob can help here in providing better insights.
>
> I think it's a question of the scale of the warnings: my understanding is that
> there are only a handful of dts files that trigger the warning at all, and it
> would be rather hard to change the tooling around this. Since the proposed
> dts change is clearly harmless, I don't mind applying it.
I am fine if we want to apply this patch as is.
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <[email protected]>
--
viresh