Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D

[Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@samsung.com>]

On 02/05/2013 04:03 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
[...]
>> Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same
>> comptible string will be used for this one too.
>>
>>> And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. 
>>> If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible
>>> string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
>>
>> AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
>>
> 
> Ok, let's use the below,
> 
> For exynos4210 SoC,
> compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"

Since S5PV210 (Exynos3110 ??) seems to have same G2D IP, I guess
something like "samsung,s5pv210-g2d" could be used for both
S5PV210 (S5PC110) and Exynos4210 (S5PC210, S5PV310) ?
I'm fine with using "samsung,exynos4210-g2d" for Exynos4210 though.

For instance for tegra SoCs a conventions like "nvidia,tegra<chip>-<ip>",
is used (e.g. "nvidia,tegra20-gr2d").

> For exynos4x12 SoCs,
> compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"

I'm not sure how well exynos4212 is going to be supported in the kernel.
As Mr Park pointed out, if it is going to be nearly not existent then we
could perhaps go with "samsung,exynos4412-g2d" for Exynos4412 and
"samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for Exynos4212 (as needed). Anyway, I fine
with using "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for both. I'd like to hear Mr Kim's
opinion on this as well though.

> For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC
> has same ip)
> compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
> 
> To other guys,
> The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we
> should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my
> opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.

It looks good to me, please just see the two remarks above.

--
Regards,
Sylwester