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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220427161126.647073-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <20220427161126.647073-5-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org> <YmmJfInA0hNQOhDN@robh.at.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <YmmJfInA0hNQOhDN@robh.at.kernel.org>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
Date:   Wed, 27 Apr 2022 21:26:41 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGE=qrp1GAVxDF4b1iBigdvbONwsF0jhfcLG-Xt3pjm8VAEdiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] ARM: dts: am33xx: use new 'dma-channels/requests' properties
To:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        =?UTF-8?Q?Beno=C3=AEt_Cousson?= <bcousson@baylibre.com>,
        Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
        Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
        Vinod Koul <vkoul@kernel.org>, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 20:20, Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx.dtsi
> > index f6ec85d58dd1..55ffb0813ded 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am33xx.dtsi
> > @@ -461,8 +461,8 @@ cppi41dma: dma-controller@2000 {
> >                               interrupts = <17>;
> >                               interrupt-names = "glue";
> >                               #dma-cells = <2>;
> > -                             #dma-channels = <30>;
> > -                             #dma-requests = <256>;
> > +                             dma-channels = <30>;
> > +                             dma-requests = <256>;
>
> You could keep the old properties for compatibility and to apply
> immediately.

Indeed, that's a nice solution. Any preference from TI SoC maintainers?

Best regards,
Krzysztof