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 16:13:36 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@linaro.org>
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Kuldeep Singh <singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>,
        SoC Team <soc@kernel.org>, Viresh Kumar <vireshk@kernel.org>,
        Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.linux.kernel@gmail.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        DTML <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: dts: spear13xx: Update SPI dma properties
Message-ID: <20220314104336.ojkkynvqldrnw2kb@vireshk-i7>
References: <20220312180615.68929-1-singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
 <20220312180615.68929-2-singh.kuldeep87k@gmail.com>
 <20220314035118.gbjbrwbsywxljjti@vireshk-i7>
 <20220314065434.GA43329@9a2d8922b8f1>
 <20220314073102.l6vokyookzyo76hj@vireshk-i7>
 <CAK8P3a1Go8xiQG=BLBmqoQiVqwkcR+T8gi0WLijzVfa3A_WuKA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a1Go8xiQG=BLBmqoQiVqwkcR+T8gi0WLijzVfa3A_WuKA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716-391-311a52
Precedence: bulk

On 14-03-22, 11:27, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I don't think that it was meant to have a fixed order: unlike the other
> bindings that define xxx-names properties, dmas require giving
> names to allow the DT to specify more than one possible DMA
> specifier for a given name. This means that nothing may ever just
> rely on an index but has to use the name for lookup.

Is there a way to update the yaml or tooling in that case so it doesn't expect a
fixed order ?

> OTOH, while fixing the order in the binding does not add any
> value, it's also harmless as this should never be able to break
> anything that worked for any combination of old/new dtb and
> kernel, and it's probably easier to express in the binding.

I agree, but such a patch shouldn't be required at all, which caught my
attention. It is fine to merge it and won't break anything, but it shouldn't be
required as well.

-- 
viresh