Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-89104-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 20:42:39 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To: Sam Protsenko <semen.protsenko@linaro.org>
Cc: Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>, andi.shyti@kernel.org,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org,
	conor+dt@kernel.org, linux-spi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andre.draszik@linaro.org,
	peter.griffin@linaro.org, willmcvicker@google.com,
	kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] spi: dt-bindings: samsung: make dma properties not
 required
Message-ID: <cb426fb0-2f27-4c9b-89f5-7139354ea425@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20240301115546.2266676-1-tudor.ambarus@linaro.org>
 <CAPLW+4=6oYcs0NPXo4ffLiCvtNQ-tY1s_isaxTX8dcPkV56xMw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MemfwNmSGq/zcA3d"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPLW+4=6oYcs0NPXo4ffLiCvtNQ-tY1s_isaxTX8dcPkV56xMw@mail.gmail.com>


--MemfwNmSGq/zcA3d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 01:28:35PM -0600, Sam Protsenko wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:55=E2=80=AFAM Tudor Ambarus <tudor.ambarus@linar=
o.org> wrote:

> > Since the addition of the driver in 2009, the driver selects between DMA
> > and polling mode depending on the transfer length - DMA mode for
> > transfers bigger than the FIFO depth, polling mode otherwise. All
> > versions of the IP support polling mode, make the dma properties not
> > required.

> AFAIU, the device tree has nothing to do with drivers, it's about
> hardware description. Does making DMA properties not required here
> mean that there are some HW out there which doesn't integrate DMA in
> SPI blocks? Even if this change is ok (I'm not sure), the
> argumentation doesn't look sound to me.

I do remember there being some SoC which shipped a SPI controller in
that configuration for some reason.  Possibly one of the OEM ones rather
than one in a Samsung SoC?

--MemfwNmSGq/zcA3d
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmXiPb4ACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9Ap3gf/eN7JFZQiBhvsOUiRAENty3XADwJD6Dy7jlfgRduqmhzKOdfa7IlHM/wl
FNIUAWf+T27AgQJjSXEXbkmON0RkeJVpWCbZoXJV9Rr2z3Xhns2wasphCMBDmtdE
oMVIohHuCe61P/svZ4zJ7//pdXxFGVvMe44Dwz1uJvbtu1SiUv2GQQ5CV5U4fUhy
Tav2FbYNzSZoy/zqsve97SBxVm6Fme8BCiTMnPvyrSbuA+UJ7/s2A243HgCM1VHA
bFpNa5zVoSbiHkI4d+s6Fo/RlOV2fpwgXTW/s4BhHYjhkgTb+Qvd/jGN1ZmPC++F
NLsnijQPfxAvIWgh4QAwhvhm2NkQTA==
=aEUe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--MemfwNmSGq/zcA3d--