From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 06:06:10 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] devicetree: bindings: Document Renesas JPEG Processing Unit. Message-Id: <1636392.ZpHdXzEmup@avalon> List-Id: References: <1408452653-14067-7-git-send-email-mikhail.ulyanov@cogentembedded.com> <20140827051501.GB1343@verge.net.au> In-Reply-To: <20140827051501.GB1343@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Simon Horman Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Mikhail Ulyanov , Magnus Damm , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Hans Verkuil , Linux-sh list , Linux Media Mailing List , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" On Wednesday 27 August 2014 14:15:01 Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:03:34AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Mikhail Ulyanov wrote: > >>>>>> + - compatible: should containg one of the following: > >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7790" for R-Car H2 > >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7791" for R-Car M2 > >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-gen2" for R-Car second > >>>>>> generation > >>>>> > >>>>> Isn't "renesas,jpu-gen2" meant as a fallback? > >>>>> > >>>>> I.e. the DTS should have one of '7790 and '7791, AND the gen2 > >>>>> fallback, so we can make the driver match against '7790 and '7791 is > >>>>> we find out about an incompatibility. > >>>> > >>>> Is there a document that clearly states that there is such a thing > >>>> as jpu-gen2 in hardware? If not I would prefer not to add a binding > >>>> for it. > >>> > >>> We do have a document that describes the "JPEG Processing Unit (JPU)", > >>> as found in the following members of the "Second Generation R-Car > >>> Series Products": "R-Car H2", "R-Car M2-W", "R-Car M2-N", and "R-Car > >>> V2H". > >> > >> Oh, that is nice :) > >> > >> From my point of view that ticks a lot of boxes. > >> But I wonder if we can come up with a better name than jpu,-gen2. > > > > "jpu-rcar-gen2"? > > I guess that is a slight improvement. > > But suppose some gen2 SoC exists or comes to exists that > has different IP. Suppose there is more than one that same > the same IP that is different to the SoCs covered by the > existing compat string? That's exactly the information we need to request from the hardware team :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] devicetree: bindings: Document Renesas JPEG Processing Unit. Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 08:06:10 +0200 Message-ID: <1636392.ZpHdXzEmup@avalon> References: <1408452653-14067-7-git-send-email-mikhail.ulyanov@cogentembedded.com> <20140827051501.GB1343@verge.net.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140827051501.GB1343@verge.net.au> Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Simon Horman Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Mikhail Ulyanov , Magnus Damm , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Rob Herring , Grant Likely , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Hans Verkuil , Linux-sh list , Linux Media Mailing List , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Wednesday 27 August 2014 14:15:01 Simon Horman wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:03:34AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Mikhail Ulyanov wrote: > >>>>>> + - compatible: should containg one of the following: > >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7790" for R-Car H2 > >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7791" for R-Car M2 > >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-gen2" for R-Car second > >>>>>> generation > >>>>> > >>>>> Isn't "renesas,jpu-gen2" meant as a fallback? > >>>>> > >>>>> I.e. the DTS should have one of '7790 and '7791, AND the gen2 > >>>>> fallback, so we can make the driver match against '7790 and '7791 is > >>>>> we find out about an incompatibility. > >>>> > >>>> Is there a document that clearly states that there is such a thing > >>>> as jpu-gen2 in hardware? If not I would prefer not to add a binding > >>>> for it. > >>> > >>> We do have a document that describes the "JPEG Processing Unit (JPU)", > >>> as found in the following members of the "Second Generation R-Car > >>> Series Products": "R-Car H2", "R-Car M2-W", "R-Car M2-N", and "R-Car > >>> V2H". > >> > >> Oh, that is nice :) > >> > >> From my point of view that ticks a lot of boxes. > >> But I wonder if we can come up with a better name than jpu,-gen2. > > > > "jpu-rcar-gen2"? > > I guess that is a slight improvement. > > But suppose some gen2 SoC exists or comes to exists that > has different IP. Suppose there is more than one that same > the same IP that is different to the SoCs covered by the > existing compat string? That's exactly the information we need to request from the hardware team :-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart