On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 10:31 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > On 02/07/2020 09:48, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-07-01 at 16:57 -0300, Leonardo Bras wrote: > > > > It is not necessarily "direct" anymore as the name suggests, you may > > > > want to change that. DMA64_PROPNAME, may be. Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, you are right. > > > I will change this for next version, also changing the string name to > > > reflect this. > > > > > > -#define DIRECT64_PROPNAME "linux,direct64-ddr-window-info" > > > +#define DMA64_PROPNAME "linux,dma64-ddr-window-info" > > > > > > Is that ok? > > > > > > Thank you for helping! > > > > In fact, there is a lot of places in this file where it's called direct > > window. Should I replace everything? > > Should it be in a separated patch? > > If it looks simple and you write a nice commit log explaining all that > and why you are not reusing the existing ibm,dma-window property (to > provide a clue what "reset" will reset to? is there any other reason?) > for that - sure, do it :) >
v3 available here: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linuxppc-dev/list/?series=187348&state=%2A&archive=both Best regards, Leonardo
