From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/25] ARM: dts: exynos4: add rotator nodes
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 09:32:56 +0100
Message-ID: <5645A038.3040207@samsung.com>
References: <1447161821-1877-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
 <1447161821-1877-2-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
 <56454B02.9030502@samsung.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-reply-to: <56454B02.9030502@samsung.com>
Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@samsung.com>, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Inki Dae <inki.dae@samsung.com>, Joonyoung Shim <jy0922.shim@samsung.com>, Seung-Woo Kim <sw0312.kim@samsung.com>, Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@samsung.com>, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@samsung.com>, Tobias Jakobi <tjakobi@math.uni-bielefeld.de>, Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@padovan.org>, Javier Martinez Canillas <javier@osg.samsung.com>
List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org

Hello,

On 2015-11-13 03:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 10.11.2015 22:23, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>> This patch adds device node for Rotator device to Exynos 4210 and 4x12
>> device tree files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi    | 10 +++++++++-
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210.dtsi |  8 ++++++++
>>   arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi |  4 ++++
>>   3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi
>> index 2f31f773b096..3fa575ad7693 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi
>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4.dtsi
>> @@ -718,6 +718,15 @@
>>   		iommus = <&sysmmu_jpeg>;
>>   	};
>>   
>> +	rotator: rotator@12810000 {
>> +		compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-rotator";
>> +		reg = <0x12810000 0x1000>;
> One more question after looking at second patch. You are mapping size of
> 0x1000 instead of 0x64. Any particular reason? (it does not really
> matter... just wondering)

Nope, it might be just a copy/paste issue I've missed. Do you want to 
unify it to
0x64 or 0x1000?

Best regards
-- 
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland