[PATCH v2 7/9] ARM: STi: DT: STiH407: Add FDMA driver dt nodes.
From: Lee Jones <hidden>
Date: 2015-09-11 19:33:53
Also in:
linux-devicetree, lkml
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Peter Griffin wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Lee Jones wrote:quoted
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Peter Griffin wrote:quoted
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Lee Jones wrote:quoted
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015, Peter Griffin wrote:quoted
These nodes are required to get the fdma driver working on STiH407 based silicon. Signed-off-by: Peter Griffin <peter.griffin@linaro.org> --- arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-family.dtsi | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 51 insertions(+)diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-family.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-family.dtsi index 838b812..da07474b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-family.dtsi +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/stih407-family.dtsi@@ -565,5 +565,56 @@ <&phy_port2 PHY_TYPE_USB3>; }; }; + + fdma0: fdma0-audio at 8e20000 {I'm not familiar with the FDMA driver, so can't comment knowledgeably, but the <dev> part of <dev>@<base_address> should only describe the type of hardware. I believe in this case it should just be dma at 08e20000. Also notice the leading zero in the address, which I believe mitigates possible confusion. Then you be more specific with the label, so something like 'fdma-audio' seems appropriate here.Ok, can change to that format in v3.quoted
quoted
+ compatible = "st,stih407-fdma-mpe31"; + reg = <0x8e20000 0x20000>;I personally find padding up to 32bits helpful in the addresses.None of the stih407-family nodes I can see have this padding, including the ones merged by you.Nither of these two facts mean it's correct.I thought it was a 'personal' thing. If it is mandated by the spec, then that is different.quoted
I'm happy to write a patch to correct them all.Are you sure your actually correcting anything? Where does it say you should have a leading zero?quoted
Bear in mind that this isn't a hard and fast rule. Both work and are legal. I just think the padding is more consistent.Surely adding a patch with how the nodes are currently formatted, is more consistent than adding a patch with padding?
I did mean consistent with the majority of DTS files, rather than just
ours. There are examples of non-padded values and it's perfectly
legal, but the vast majority of examples do in fact pad their
addresses [see below]. The change is more of a nit than a blocker.
git grep '@0[0-9|a-f]\{7\}' -- arch/arm/boot/dts/
892
git grep '@[0-9|a-f]\{7\} ' -- arch/arm/boot/dts/ | grep -vi sti | \
grep -vi partition | grep -vi data
140
I'll probably still fix them up and resubmit some patches to bring us
into line with the vast majority.
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog