Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] dt-bindings: display: Add GlandaGPU binding

[Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>]

On 02/08/2026 18:16, Leander Kieweg wrote:
> Thanks for the review.
> 
>>> +properties:
>>> +  compatible:
>>> +    const: glanda,gpu-1.0
>>
>> What does this 1.0 correspond to? There is no such tag on linked Github.
> 
> I've pushed a v1.0 tag to the GlandaGPU repo now, matching the
> register interface described in this binding:
> https://github.com/stiangglanda/GlandaGPU/releases/tag/v1.0
> 
>>> +  "^glanda,.*":
>>> +    description: GlandaGPU
>>
>> Vendor prefixes are per actual vendor, not product.
>>
>> I have doubts this is needed in the first place. As a pure FPGA design,
>> this cannot work alone and you cannot get it alone (at least yet,
>> happily to see resources proving me wrong). Thus it will be always
>> customized per final board design, thus that final compatible is what
>> matters.
> 
> "opencores" and "openrisc" are both accepted vendor prefixes for
> open-source hardware projects rather than commercial vendors, so a
> project name seems reasonable to me here too.
> 
> That said, I take your point about board customization. I'm happy to
> add a board-specific compatible as the primary match, with
> "glanda,gpu-1.0" as the fallback, e.g.:
> 
> compatible = "terasic,de10-standard-glandagpu", "glanda,gpu-1.0";
> 
> The driver would keep matching on "glanda,gpu-1.0". Let me know
> if you'd like this for v3, or if the generic compatible is enough for now,
> since there's currently only one board using this core.

openrisc is arch.
opencores is entire org. Are you saying that "Glanda" is this one:
https://www.glanda.com.au/
and opencores releases entire SoCs, thus they integrate their own IPs
there into final product. I agree though, that opencores should not
define standalone generic compatibles.

Best regards,
Krzysztof