> > > > > > On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 04:43:35PM +0200, Segher > Boessenkool wrote: > > > > > + l) Freescale DMA > > > > > > > > > + - compatible : Should be "fsl,dma". > > > > > > > > Please choose some more specific name. "fsl,mpc8540-dma" would > > > > be a reasonable choice perhaps. > > > > > > More precisely, the compatible property should always > have an specific > > > entry based on the exact chip the DMA engine resides in, > as well as a > > > more general entry for any fsl dma engine of this type. > > > > > There is only difference in DMA channel and not in DMA node > now. Does it > > need add the precise compatible property name? > > Yes. First of all, there most likely is a difference -- the > endianness > of the shared status summary register. Secondly, the device > tree should > not make assumptions as far as whether the user is going to bind to > individual channels or the whole controller.
I have a strange issue here. If I rename 'fsl,dma' to 'fsl,mpc8540-dma', the 'fsl,mpc8540-dma-channel' will be also regarded as DMA device not DMA channel. Thanks! - zw _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
