[PATCH RFC v5 4/5] dma: mpc512x: register for device tree channel lookup

[Mark Rutland]

On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 02:31:54PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 18 November 2013, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/mpc512x-dma.txt
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
> > > +* Freescale MPC512x DMA Controller
> > > +
> > > +The DMA controller in the Freescale MPC512x SoC can move blocks of
> > > +memory contents between memory and peripherals or memory to memory.
> > > +
> > > +Refer to the "Generic DMA Controller and DMA request bindings" description
> > > +in the dma.txt file for a more detailled discussion of the binding.  The
> > > +MPC512x DMA engine binding follows the common scheme, but doesn't provide
> > > +support for the optional channels and requests counters (those values are
> > > +derived from the detected hardware features) and has a fixed client
> > > +specifier length of 1 integer cell (the value is the DMA channel, since
> > > +the DMA controller uses a fixed assignment of request lines per channel).
> > 
> > The fact that #dma-cells must be <1> isn't a difference from the
> > standard binding, and needs not be described here. The meaning of the
> > value should be in your description of #dma-cells below.
> 
> I think the value it has to be in there, and I have in the past asked other
> people to add this. Note that in the generic binding, it says that it must
> be "at least 1". You can have controllers that require a larger number, or
> that can use 1 or 2 alternatively, depending on how the device is wired
> up, e.g. when a dma controller has two master ports you would need a
> second cell to specify the port number, but only if more than one port
> is actually connected to a slave.

The number of cells required should be described. My points were that it
should be described at the property description rather than in the introduction,
and that the fact that a specific value was required was not a
difference from the bindings as the paragraph implied.

> 
> > I'm not sure it's worth mentioning optional channels / request counters.
> > If anything, it would be better to update dma.txt to move the "Optional
> > properties" to something like "Suggested properties"...
> 
> These are less clearly defined. In the generic binding, it's mostly a matter
> of "if you need to pass this information, use these properties". The individual
> binding can then make them mandatory if needed.

Agreed. I'd prefer that bindings described the suggested properties they
used, rather than those they don't.

Thanks,
Mark.