Re: [PATCH v7 1/7] media: dt-bindings: venus: Add qcm2290 dt schema

[Jorge Ramirez <jorge.ramirez@oss.qualcomm.com>]

On 17/07/25 08:45:17, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/07/2025 08:35, Jorge Ramirez wrote:
> > On 17/07/25 00:22:53, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
> >> On 15/07/2025 21:47, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote:
> >>> Add a schema for the venus video encoder/decoder on the qcm2290.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz <jorge.ramirez@oss.qualcomm.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Bryan O'Donoghue <bryan.odonoghue@linaro.org>
> >>> ---
> >>>   .../bindings/media/qcom,qcm2290-venus.yaml    | 127 ++++++++++++++++++
> >>>   1 file changed, 127 insertions(+)
> >>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,qcm2290-venus.yaml
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,qcm2290-venus.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,qcm2290-venus.yaml
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 000000000000..0371f8dd91a3
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/qcom,qcm2290-venus.yaml
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
> >>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
> >>> +%YAML 1.2
> >>> +---
> >>> +$id: http://devicetree.org/schemas/media/qcom,qcm2290-venus.yaml#
> >>> +$schema: http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#
> >>> +
> >>> +title: Qualcomm QCM2290 Venus video encode and decode accelerators
> >>> +
> >>> +maintainers:
> >>> +  - Vikash Garodia <quic_vgarodia@quicinc.com>
> >>
> >> Shouldn't you be on this list ? If you upstream a file I think you should
> >> list yourself as responsible for its glory or its mess.
> > 
> > happy to do it. The MAINTAINER's file covered all the files named
> 
> This should be the person(s) interested and caring about this hardware,
> which means:
> 1. Subsystem maintainers: no
> 2. Driver maintainers: usually yes
> 3. Author(s) of new hardware support: usually yes

perfect, will do 

> 
> > schemas/media/*venus* so my understanding was that I shouldn't.
> 
> I cannot comment why people decided to go one way or another in other
> code, but it as well could be just incorrect choice thinking only people
> in MAINTAINERS care about hardware.
> 
> ...
> 
> >>> +
> >>> +        memory-region = <&pil_video_mem>;
> >>> +        iommus = <&apps_smmu 0x860 0x0>,
> >>> +                 <&apps_smmu 0x880 0x0>,
> >>> +                 <&apps_smmu 0x861 0x04>,
> >>> +                 <&apps_smmu 0x863 0x0>,
> >>> +                 <&apps_smmu 0x804 0xe0>;
> >>
> >> You're listing five iommus.
> >>
> >> I understand there's some disagreement about whether or not to list all of
> >> the potential use-cases but, TBH I don't think those are good arguments.
> >>
> >> Unless there's some technical prohibition I can't think of listing all five
> >> maxItems:5 .. let's just do that.
> > 
> > since the device tree should describe hardware and not policy, and the
> > driver seems to be able to ignore the unused SIDs I think this is the
> > right thing to do.
> 
> 
> It was never about the driver but about whether you should describe in
> DTS for non-secure world the entries which are secure world. The answer
> in general is that you can and there will be benefits (e.g. sharing DTS
> with secure world implementations).

all right, sounds good then, thanks