On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 06:01:39PM +0800, Zhang Wei-r63237 wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:43:35PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > > > > + l) Freescale DMA > > > > > > > + - compatible : Should be "fsl,dma". > > > > > > Please choose some more specific name. "fsl,mpc8540-dma" would > > > be a reasonable choice perhaps. > > > > More precisely, the compatible property should always have an specific > > entry based on the exact chip the DMA engine resides in, as well as a > > more general entry for any fsl dma engine of this type. > > > There is only difference in DMA channel and not in DMA node now. Does it > need add the precise compatible property name?
Yes. First of all, there most likely is a difference -- the endianness of the shared status summary register. Secondly, the device tree should not make assumptions as far as whether the user is going to bind to individual channels or the whole controller. -Scott _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
