On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 12:35:26PM +0200, Peter Ujfalusi wrote: > Tom, > > On 22/01/2019 20.56, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 08:33:57PM +0530, Vignesh R wrote: > > > >> The UDMA-P is intended to perform similar (but significantly upgraded) > >> functions > >> as the packet-oriented DMA used on previous SoC devices. The UDMA-P module > >> supports the transmission and reception of various packet types. > >> The UDMA-P also supports acting as both a UTC and UDMA-C for its internal > >> channels. Channels in the UDMA-P can be configured to be either > >> Packet-Based or > >> Third-Party channels on a channel by channel basis. > >> > >> The initial driver supports: > >> - MEM_TO_MEM (TR mode) > >> - DEV_TO_MEM (Packet mode) > >> - MEM_TO_DEV (Packet mode) > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfal...@ti.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.stras...@ti.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Vignesh R <vigne...@ti.com> > > > > Reviewed-by: Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> > > > > And the DT binding is common to Linux, and been reviewed there? Or? > > The binding is the same for Linux but unfortunately it has not went > through a proper review yet due to the fact that I need to wait for the > interrupt support to arrive to mainline. > > However I have sent an earlier version as RFC: > https://www.spinics.net/lists/dmaengine/msg16661.html > > As for the bindings (and code): > The linux bindings are different:
OK. But we generally don't want the bindings to be different as, putting my DT guy hat on, they aren't supposed to be OS centric and all of that. That's not to say that we might not end up needing to figure out ways to do something more simply in U-Boot than in Linux. So, really, do we want the bindings to not match? Thanks! -- Tom
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
