On 03/10/17 00:02, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 02.10.2017 20:05, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/29/2017 09:11 PM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 29.09.2017 22:30, Stephen Warren wrote:
On 09/27/2017 02:34 AM, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 27/09/17 02:57, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
On 26.09.2017 17:50, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 26/09/17 00:22, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
Document DT bindings for NVIDIA Tegra AHB DMA controller that presents
on Tegra20/30 SoC's.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
ÂÂ .../bindings/dma/nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma.txtÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ | 23
ÂÂ 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)
ÂÂ create mode 100644
new file mode 100644
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+* NVIDIA Tegra AHB DMA controller
+- compatible:ÂÂÂ Must be "nvidia,tegra20-ahbdma"
+- reg:ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ Should contain registers base address and length.
+- interrupts:ÂÂÂ Should contain one entry, DMA controller interrupt.
+- clocks:ÂÂÂ Should contain one entry, DMA controller clock.
+- resets :ÂÂÂ Should contain one entry, DMA controller reset.
+- #dma-cells:ÂÂÂ Should be <1>. The cell represents DMA request select
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ for the peripheral. For more details consult the Tegra TRM's
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ documentation, in particular AHB DMA channel control register
+ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ REQ_SEL field.
What about the TRIG_SEL field? Do we need to handle this here as well?
Actually, DMA transfer trigger isn't related a hardware description. It's
software to decide what trigger to select. So it shouldn't be in the binding.
I think it could be, if say a board wanted a GPIO to trigger a transfer.
And I think the same applies to requester... any objections?
Well, the REQ_SEL should definitely be in the binding.
Laxman, Stephen, what are your thoughts on the TRIG_SEL field? Looks
like we never bothered with it for the APB DMA and so maybe no ones uses
I don't think TRIG_SEL should be in the binding, at least at present. While
TRIG_SEL certainly is something used to configure the transfer, I believe the
semantics of the current DMA binding only cover DMA transfers that are initiated
when SW desires, rather than being a combination of after SW programs the
transfer plus some other HW event. So, we always use a default/hard-coded
TRIG_SEL value. As such, there's no need for a TRIG_SEL value in DT. There's
certainly no known use-case that requires a non-default TRIG_SEL value at
present. We could add an extra #dma-cells value later if we find a use for it,
and the semantics of that use-case make sense to add it to the DMA specifier,
rather than some other separate higher-level property/driver/...
Thank you for the comment. If we'd want to extend the binding further with the
trigger, how to differentiate trigger from the requester in a case of a single
Of course realistically a chance that the further extension would be needed is
very-very low, so we may defer the efforts to solve that question and for now
make driver aware of the potential #dma-cells extension.
The request selector cell isn't optional, so is always present. If we later add
an optional trig_sel cell, we'll either have:
#dma-cells=<2>: req_sel, trig_sel
Why request sel. couldn't be optional? Could you please elaborate a bit more?
I think possible options are:
With the above, how would you know that it is the req_sel or trig_sel
that is specified?