From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754228AbdGJPYq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:24:46 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:43736 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753772AbdGJPYo (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:24:44 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 004E922C85 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=robh@kernel.org MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <13f2516b-9e2b-4ad6-ecf1-76fc0d744a32@synopsys.com> References: <8ebe3dfcd61a1c8cfa99102c376ad26b2bfbd254.1497978963.git.joabreu@synopsys.com> <20170623215814.ase6g4lbukaeqak2@rob-hp-laptop> <13f2516b-9e2b-4ad6-ecf1-76fc0d744a32@synopsys.com> From: Rob Herring Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:24:22 -0500 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] dt-bindings: media: Document Synopsys Designware HDMI RX To: Jose Abreu Cc: "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Carlos Palminha , Mark Rutland , Mauro Carvalho Chehab , Hans Verkuil , Sylwester Nawrocki Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Jose Abreu wrote: > Hi Rob, > > > On 23-06-2017 22:58, Rob Herring wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 06:26:12PM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote: >>> Document the bindings for the Synopsys Designware HDMI RX. >>> [...] >>> +A sample binding is now provided. The compatible string is for a SoC which has >>> +has a Synopsys Designware HDMI RX decoder inside. >>> + >>> +Example: >>> + >>> +dw_hdmi_soc: dw-hdmi-soc@0 { >>> + compatible = "snps,dw-hdmi-soc"; >> Not documented. > > Yes, its a sample binding which reflects a wrapper driver that > shall instantiate the controller driver (and this wrapper driver > is not in this patch series), should I remove this? Ah, I see. Please don't do this wrapper node like what was done on DWC3. It should be all one node with the SoC specific part being a new compatible string (and maybe additional properties). If there's really some custom logic around the IP block, then maybe it makes sense, but if it is just different clock connections, phys, resets, etc. those don't need a separate node. Rob