Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] dt-bindings: media: Document bindings for the Sunxi-Cedrus VPU driver

[Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard-LDxbnhwyfcJBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1356 bytes --]

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:56:20AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote:
> > > I agree that the term VPU is more commonly associated with video
> > > decoding, while video engine could mean a number of things.
> > > 
> > > The reason I went with "video-engine" here (while still presenting
> > > the
> > > driver as a VPU driver) is that Video Engine is the term used in
> > > Allwinner's litterature. Other nodes in Allwinner device-trees
> > > generally
> > > stick to these terms (for instance, we have "display-engine" nodes).
> > > This also makes it easier to find the matching parts in the
> > > documentation.
> > 
> > 'video-codec' is what is defined in the DT spec.
> 
> Is that an actively-enforced guideline or a suggestion? I'd like to keep
> video-engine just to stick with the technical documentation wording and
> my personal taste is also to prefer vpu over video-codec (in terms of
> clarity/straightforwardness) as a second choice.
> 
> Still, if the choice isn't up to me, we can go with video-codec (or
> vpu).

The unit-name is supposed to reflect the class of the device, and
nothing else. If there's already a pre-existing class name defined for
these kind of devices, then there's no point in choosing something
else.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com