From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] dma: add Qualcomm Technologies HIDMA management driver Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:25:14 -0600 Message-ID: <20151109182514.GA10896@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1446958380-23298-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1446958380-23298-3-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <563ED8DF.6090307@codeaurora.org> <56400230.8030303@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:55753 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751954AbbKISZU (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2015 13:25:20 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56400230.8030303@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Sinan Kaya Cc: Timur Tabi , dmaengine@vger.kernel.org, cov@codeaurora.org, jcm@redhat.com, agross@codeaurora.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Vinod Koul , Dan Williams , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:17:20PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 11/8/2015 12:08 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > On 11/8/2015 12:08 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > >Sinan Kaya wrote: > >>+ val = val & ~(MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS); > >>+ val = val | (mgmtdev->max_write_request << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS); > >>+ val = val & ~(MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK); > >>+ val = val | (mgmtdev->max_read_request); > > > >val &= ~MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS; > >val |= mgmtdev->max_write_request << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS; > >val &= ~MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK; > >val |= mgmtdev->max_read_request; > > > >>+static const struct of_device_id hidma_mgmt_match[] = { > >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt", }, > >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", }, > >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", }, > >>+ {}, > >>+}; > > > >I thought Rob said that he did NOT want to use version numbers in > >compatible strings. And what's the difference between these three > >versions anyway? > > > > This was already discussed here. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/689 > > The agreement was to use The suggestion... > compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", > "qcom,hidma-mgmt"; I don't really want to see 3 generic-ish strings. > I'll be adding code for v1.1 specifically in the future. Please drop "qcom,hidma-mgmt" altogether. It is already meaningless. Then add the 1.1 compatible when you add the code for it. Hopefully you all can decide on part number(s) by then. Rob From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robh@kernel.org (Rob Herring) Date: Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:25:14 -0600 Subject: [PATCH V3 2/4] dma: add Qualcomm Technologies HIDMA management driver In-Reply-To: <56400230.8030303@codeaurora.org> References: <1446958380-23298-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <1446958380-23298-3-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <563ED8DF.6090307@codeaurora.org> <56400230.8030303@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20151109182514.GA10896@rob-hp-laptop> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Nov 08, 2015 at 09:17:20PM -0500, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 11/8/2015 12:08 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > > On 11/8/2015 12:08 AM, Timur Tabi wrote: > >Sinan Kaya wrote: > >>+ val = val & ~(MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS); > >>+ val = val | (mgmtdev->max_write_request << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS); > >>+ val = val & ~(MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK); > >>+ val = val | (mgmtdev->max_read_request); > > > >val &= ~MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS; > >val |= mgmtdev->max_write_request << MAX_BUS_WR_REQ_BIT_POS; > >val &= ~MAX_BUS_REQ_LEN_MASK; > >val |= mgmtdev->max_read_request; > > > >>+static const struct of_device_id hidma_mgmt_match[] = { > >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt", }, > >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", }, > >>+ { .compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", }, > >>+ {}, > >>+}; > > > >I thought Rob said that he did NOT want to use version numbers in > >compatible strings. And what's the difference between these three > >versions anyway? > > > > This was already discussed here. > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/11/2/689 > > The agreement was to use The suggestion... > compatible = "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.1", "qcom,hidma-mgmt-1.0", > "qcom,hidma-mgmt"; I don't really want to see 3 generic-ish strings. > I'll be adding code for v1.1 specifically in the future. Please drop "qcom,hidma-mgmt" altogether. It is already meaningless. Then add the 1.1 compatible when you add the code for it. Hopefully you all can decide on part number(s) by then. Rob