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 !

Reply via email to