[PATCH v11 1/3] dt-bindings: dma: Add Amlogic A9 SoC DMA

[Xianwei Zhao]

Hi Vinod Koul,
    Thanks for your review.

On 2026/7/14 19:58, Vinod Koul wrote:
> On 14-07-26, 08:19,sashiko-bot at kernel.org  wrote:
>> Thank you for your contribution! Sashiko AI review found 1 potential issue(s) to consider:
>> - [Low] The macros DMA_TX and DMA_RX in the global DT binding header lack an Amlogic/SoC specific prefix, leading to namespace pollution and potential build conflicts.
>> --
>>
>> --- Patch [1]: [PATCH v11 1/3] dt-bindings: dma: Add Amlogic A9 SoC DMA ---
>> commit 093f368eaa67418008421d43d724ce2e98651039
>> Author: Xianwei Zhao<xianwei.zhao at amlogic.com>
>> dt-bindings: dma: Add Amlogic A9 SoC DMA
>>
>> This commit adds device tree binding documentation for the Amlogic A9 SoC
>> general-purpose DMA controller. It introduces the YAML schema and a header
>> file defining the channel type macros.
>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/amlogic,a9-dma.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/amlogic,a9-dma.yaml
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/dma/amlogic,a9-dma.yaml
>> [ ... ]
>>> +  '#dma-cells':
>>> +    const: 2
>>> +    description:
>>> +      The first cell is the DMA channel type(DMA_TX or DMA_RX).
>>> +      The second cell is the DMA channel index.
>> [ ... ]
>>> diff --git a/include/dt-bindings/dma/amlogic,a9-dma.h b/include/dt-bindings/dma/amlogic,a9-dma.h
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/include/dt-bindings/dma/amlogic,a9-dma.h
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
>>> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR MIT) */
>>> +
>>> +#ifndef __DT_BINDINGS_DMA_AMLOGIC_DMA_H__
>>> +#define __DT_BINDINGS_DMA_AMLOGIC_DMA_H__
>>> +
>>> +#define DMA_TX                     0
>>> +#define DMA_RX                     1
>> [Severity: Low]
>> Are these macro names too generic for a global dt-bindings header?
>>
>> Since headers in include/dt-bindings/ are globally visible and frequently
>> included by C drivers, unprefixed names like DMA_TX and DMA_RX could lead
>> to namespace pollution and macro redefinition build failures if a driver
>> includes this alongside other headers that use the same common names.
>>
>> Would it be safer to add a vendor or SoC prefix, such as AMLOGIC_A9_DMA_TX?
> I think this makes sense to add here

In the 4 version, I was advised to remove the prefix. Should I use 
DMA_TX or  AMLOGIC_A9_DMA_TX here?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-amlogic/c47d44f6-3d0d-482e-b45c-7f6e98d9ac4e@amlogic.com/