Re: [PATCH 01/10] dt-bindings: display: renesas: Add R-Car LVDS encoder DT bindings

From: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
To: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>,
	DRI Development <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
	Linux-Renesas <linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
	Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>,
	devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/10] dt-bindings: display: renesas: Add R-Car LVDS encoder DT bindings
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 08:57:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180115075747.gs2i34swviwrlsvz@verge.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2213619.LpHAiGQTjv@avalon>

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 08:59:38AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Monday, 15 January 2018 08:55:29 EET Simon Horman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:29:48PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > On Friday, 12 January 2018 12:13:18 EET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > >>> The Renesas R-Car Gen2 and Gen3 SoCs have internal LVDS encoders. Add
> > >>> corresponding device tree bindings.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> > >>> <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com>
> > >>> 
> > >>> --- /dev/null
> > >>> +++
> > >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/renesas,lvds.txt
> > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
> > >>> +Renesas R-Car LVDS Encoder
> > >>> +==========================
> > >>> +
> > >>> +These DT bindings describe the LVDS encoder embedded in the Renesas
> > >>> R-Car Gen2 +and Gen3 SoCs.
> > >>> +
> > >>> +Required properties:
> > >>> +
> > >>> +- compatible : Shall contain one of
> > >>> +  - "renesas,lvds-r8a7743" for R8A7790 (R-Car RZ/G1M) compatible LVDS
> > >>> encoders
> > >>> +  - "renesas,lvds-r8a7790" for R8A7790 (R-Car H2) compatible LVDS
> > >>> encoders
> > >>> +  - "renesas,lvds-r8a7791" for R8A7791 (R-Car M2-W) compatible LVDS
> > >>> encoders
> > >>> +  - "renesas,lvds-r8a7793" for R8A7791 (R-Car M2-N) compatible LVDS
> > >>> encoders
> > >>> +  - "renesas,lvds-r8a7795" for R8A7795 (R-Car H3) compatible LVDS
> > >>> encoders
> > >>> +  - "renesas,lvds-r8a7796" for R8A7796 (R-Car M3-W) compatible LVDS
> > >>> encoders
> > >> 
> > >> As this is a new binding, please use "renesas,<soc>-lvds".
> > > 
> > > I've recently been thinking that we made the wrong choice, <ip>-<soc>
> > > would be better in my opinion as it aligns with <ip>-<version>, but it's
> > > too late to change that, so I'll change the order here.
> > 
> > My recollection is that in the beginning we had a bit of a mixture but
> > leaned towards <ip>-<soc>, which made sense in my opinion. However, after
> > some discussion it was agreed that the best-practice for upstream was to
> > use <soc>-<ip>. Unless that situation has changed lets stock with using
> > <soc>-<ip> for new bindings.
> 
> Sure, that was my plan, and it seems I failed to explain it clearly. I too 
> believe that <ip>-<soc> would be better, but as we have standardized on <soc>-
> <ip> and as there's no strong reason to reconsider that decision at the 
> moment, the next version of this patch will use <soc>-<ip>. It was a mistake 
> in v1, not an attempt to change what we had agreed on.

Thanks, it seems that we are in complete agreement.

> > >> BTW, would it make sense to use "renesas,<soc>-du" for the new DU
> > >> binding, too? Or have you reserved that for the future version that will
> > >> have a one-to-one mapping between device nodes and DU channels? ;-)
> > > 
> > > It's a good idea, let's reserve it for that evolution. If it ever happens
> > > ;-)
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Laurent Pinchart
> 