On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:00 PM Manivannan Sadhasivam <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi John, > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 12:56:22PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > > Some dma channels can be reserved for secure mode or other > > hardware on the SoC, so provide a binding for a bitmask > > listing the available channels for the kernel to use. > > > > Cc: Vinod Koul <[email protected]> > > Cc: Rob Herring <[email protected]> > > Cc: Mark Rutland <[email protected]> > > Cc: Tanglei Han <[email protected]> > > Cc: Zhuangluan Su <[email protected]> > > Cc: Ryan Grachek <[email protected]> > > Cc: Manivannan Sadhasivam <[email protected]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Signed-off-by: John Stultz <[email protected]> > > --- > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/k3dma.txt | 3 +++ > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/k3dma.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/k3dma.txt > > index 10a2f15..1c466c1 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/k3dma.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/k3dma.txt > > @@ -14,6 +14,9 @@ Required properties: > > have specific request line > > - clocks: clock required > > > > +Optional properties: > > +- dma-avail-chan: Bitmask of available physical channels > > + > > This property looks too generic. Since this is specific to HiSi SoCs, > this could be "hisi-dma-avail-chan"?
I'm fine to change it, but I'm not sure I fully understand the rational. Can you help me understand? Are device node-binding names supposed to have global scope? I assumed the node property names are basically scoped to the entry? Further, having some dma channels be reserved doesn't seem to be too unique a concept, so I'm not sure what we gain long term by prefixing it? thanks -john
