Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 12:24:34 +0530
From:   Kuldeep Singh <singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
To:     Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
Cc:     soc@kernel.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: dts: spear13xx: Update SPI dma properties
Message-ID: <20220314065434.GA43329@9a2d8922b8f1>
References: <20220312180615.68929-1-singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
 <20220312180615.68929-2-singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
 <20220314035118.gbjbrwbsywxljjti@vireshk-i7>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220314035118.gbjbrwbsywxljjti@vireshk-i7>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 09:21:18AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 12-03-22, 23:36, Kuldeep Singh wrote:
> > Reorder dmas and dma-names property for spi controller node to make it
> > compliant with bindings.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kuldeep Singh <singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
> 
> What about a fixes tag ?

Sure, will add one.

> > ---
> >  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";
> 
> Why does the order matter here since we have dma-names anyway, which
> was correct earlier ?

Dma-names order matters here.
As per pl022 binding, dma-names order specify rx,tx and all DTs which
have tx,rx as order start raising dtbs_chek warning. Thus, need to
reverse this order. Please note, no functional change in this patch
apart from just fixing warning.

Warning:
'rx' was expected
'tx' was expected

Regards
Kuldeep