Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 9 Nov 2015 12:25:14 -0600 | From | Rob Herring <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH V3 2/4] dma: add Qualcomm Technologies HIDMA management driver |
| |
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
| |