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;
Message-ID: <d3205b59-6b6e-2983-9e2a-39354cd1803e@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 26 Sep 2022 01:25:45 +0530
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dt-bindings: dma: Make minor fixes to qcom,bam-dma
 binding doc
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, bhupesh.linux@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vkoul@kernel.org, agross@kernel.org,
        dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, konrad.dybcio@somainline.org,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, andersson@kernel.org
References: <20220918081119.295364-1-bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>
 <d7507d61-9d16-c2d3-2066-5e2f9afd6eb9@linaro.org>
From:   Bhupesh Sharma <bhupesh.sharma@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <d7507d61-9d16-c2d3-2066-5e2f9afd6eb9@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


On 9/18/22 2:19 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 18/09/2022 09:11, Bhupesh Sharma wrote:
>> As a user recently noted, the qcom,bam-dma binding document
>> describes the BAM DMA node incorrectly.
> 
> It's a bit confusing - what is exactly incorrectly described by binding?
> You did not make any changes to the binding itself...

Sorry for the late reply. Your comment just skipped through my mail 
filters :(

I understand your point. I should have made the commit message more 
descriptive (infact now I look at it, I see some key words are actually 
missing from the commit message).

The commit message should infact read as:

"As a user recently noted, the qcom,bam-dma binding document
describes the BAM DMA node *in the example section* incorrectly. Fix the 
same by making it consistent with the node present inside 'qcom-msm8974' 
dts file, *namely the 'reg' and 'interrupt' values which are incorrect. 
While looking at the example in the binding document, the user noted 
that its incorrect when compared with both the 'msm8974' upstream as 
well as downstream dts files.*

I hope the bold text (which I added above), helps clear the purpose of 
the patch better.

Please let me know your views.

Thanks,
Bhupesh