On Thu, 2020-07-02 at 10:31 +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: > > 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 > for that - sure, do it :)
Nice, I will do that :) > (to provide a clue what "reset" will reset to? is there any other > reason?) That's the main reason here. The way I perceive this, ibm,dma-window should only point to the default DMA window, which is guaranteed to always be the same, even if it's destroyed and re-created. So there I see no point destroying / overwriting it. On the other hand, I also thought about using a new node name for this window, but it would be very troublesome and I could see no real gain. Thanks !