Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 11 Sep 2020 17:47:11 +0530
From:   Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>
To:     Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
Cc:     dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lokeshvutla@ti.com, nm@ti.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] dmaengine: ti: k3-udma: Use soc_device_match() for
 SoC dependent parameters
Message-ID: <20200911121711.GB77521@vkoul-mobl>
References: <20200910124329.21206-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200910124329.21206-1-peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 10-09-20, 15:43, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> Use separate data for SoC dependent parameters. These parameters depends
> on the DMA integration (either in HW or in SYSFW), the DMA controller
> itself remains compatible with either the am654 or j721e variant.
> 
> j7200 have the same DMA as j721e with different number of channels, which
> can be queried from HW, but SYSFW defines different rchan_oes_offset
> number for j7200 (0x80) compared to j721e (0x400).

Applied, thanks

> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi@ti.com>
> ---
> Hi Vinod,
> 
> Changes since v1:
> - mark the udma_soc_data for am654, j721e and j7200 as static
> 
> this patch is going to be needed when the j7200 support is upstream (we already
> have the psil map in dmaengine/next for the UDMA).
> 
> Since the hardware itself is the same (but different number of channels) I
> wanted to avoid a new set of compatible just becase STSFW is not using the same
> rchan_oes_offset value for j7200 and j721e.
> 
> Vinod: this patch will not apply cleanly on dmaengine/next because it is on top
> of dmaengine/next + the dmaengine/fixes. This might cause issues.
> 
> "dmaengine: ti: k3-udma: Update rchan_oes_offset for am654 SYSFW ABI 3.0" in
> fixes changes the rchan_oes_offset for am654 from 0x2000 to 0x200 and this patch
> assumes 0x200...
> 
> is there anything I can do to make it easier for you?

No worries, I have merged fixes into next and applied this. That is how
we typically handle this case

-- 
~Vinod