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

[Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>]

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-ryLnwIuWjnjg/C1BVhZhaw@public.gmane.org>
> >>> 
> >>> --- /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.

> >> 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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html