Re: [PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: media: Add bindings for raspberrypi,rp1-cfe

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>]

On 20/03/2024 09:50, Naushir Patuck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm still wondering about the RP1 part there in the compatible
>>>> string. Is it necessary? The CFE is located in the RP1 co-processor, but
>>>> is that relevant?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a versioning for the whole RP1 chip? Maybe it's going to the
>>>> wrong direction if we use the board/SoC for this compatible name, as
>>>> it's actually the RP1 where the CFE is located in, not the SoC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really know the conversion required to answer this one.
>>> Logically CFE is on RP1, so it makes sense to me to have "rp1" in the
>>> string, but I will follow the judgment of the maintainers.
>>
>> Well, my thinking here was that if we have a register from which to read
>> the version, and Raspberry Pi would create a new co-processor, RP2, with
>> the same CFE. Would we then have "raspberrypi,rp1-cfe" and
>> "raspberrypi,rp2-cfe", even if there are no changes? 

That would follow guidelines as expressed in writing bindings.

>>Or would a plain
>> "raspberrypi,cfe" do for both?
>>
>> In other words, if we don't need the "rp1" for versioning purposes,
>> should it then be dropped?
> 
> I agree with the above, you've convinced me that "raspberrypi,cfe"
> might be the more appropriate string, or a convincing argument for
> that to be a fallback string.

Just follow the guidelines. If you come up with generic compatible
alone, you could run to the same problems everyone is running.

Best regards,
Krzysztof