Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756508AbdIHO5E (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:57:04 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:41638 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756302AbdIHO5D (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Sep 2017 10:57:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] dmaengine: sun6i: Add support for Allwinner A64 To: Maxime Ripard Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Stefan_Br=c3=bcns?= , linux-sunxi@googlegroups.com, Chen-Yu Tsai , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, Vinod Koul , Rob Herring , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20170830233609.13855-4-stefan.bruens@rwth-aachen.de> <20170901003135.10058-1-andre.przywara@arm.com> <20170901060445.vboici7qxfkztp3s@flea> <743ae23a-372a-762b-c345-b914f09fd718@arm.com> <20170904070415.e6nclz5n23bo7f4v@flea> <20170908143913.6ga64ssakvk2mjis@flea.lan> From: Andre Przywara Message-ID: <4c4ea0f7-3df3-7ab4-100d-c8545211d582@arm.com> Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 15:57:03 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170908143913.6ga64ssakvk2mjis@flea.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1491 Lines: 38 Hi Maxime, On 08/09/17 15:39, Maxime Ripard wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Sep 04, 2017 at 09:14:52AM +0100, Andr? Przywara wrote: >>> And obviously, while maintaining the stability of the binding of those >>> hundreds properties. >>> >>> Or, you can base all this on the compatible, and be done with it once >>> and for all. >> >> What I am after is to cover SoCs which *don't* have differences in their >> register layout, for instance A83T, H3, A64, R40. >> In an ideal world we could have reused the H3 compatible string, >> adjusting the number of channels for each SoC in the DT. >> >> So I see that having a generic compatible name will not fly, as we now >> have differences which should not be modelled by DT properties. >> But I still think we should try to cover those non-register differences >> (number of channels) with a DT property, to allow reusing the existing >> driver code whenever possible. As is stands with this series, the R40 >> support should just be a matter of: >> compatible = "allwinner,sun8i-r40-dma", >> "allwinner,sun50i-a64-dma"; > > I just suggested the exact same thing, and then saw your mail, so I > guess we have an agreement :) Yes, I was thinking so as well. Since my DeLorean is in the garage ;-) we have no other choice than doing so. My original suggestion for a generic name was based on my naive reading of the existing code, which *looked like* it would be all compatible. But as we know better now, this is the way to go. Merci, Andr?