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

Reply via email to