On Thu, Oct 01, 2020 at 09:49:43AM +0300, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:

Hi Rob,

On 30/09/2020 12.14, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:

quoted

New binding document for
Texas Instruments K3 Block Copy DMA (BCDMA).

BCDMA is introduced as part of AM64.

Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <redacted>
---
 .../devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml  | 183 ++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 183 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..c84fb641738f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/ti/k3-bcdma.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,183 @@

...

quoted

+  compatible:
+    enum:
+      - ti,am64-dmss-bcdma

Would it be OK if I use ti,am64x-dmss-bcdma or should I stick with
am64-dmss-bcdma.

'ti,am654.*' was used pretty consistently, is this family different?

The TRM refers to the family as AM64x, but having the 'x' in the
compatible did not sounded right.

We generally don't want wildcards, but if the last digit is just pinout 
or fusing differences, then it's fine IMO.

Bottomline, just be consistent across all the compatible strings for 
this SoC.

Rob