From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:48272 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751683AbaFKLjA (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:39:00 -0400 Message-ID: <1402486738.4107.129.camel@paszta.hi.pengutronix.de> Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/43] imx-drm: ipu-v3: Add solo/dual-lite IPU device type From: Philipp Zabel To: Steve Longerbeam Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, Steve Longerbeam , Jiada Wang Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:38:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1402178205-22697-5-git-send-email-steve_longerbeam@mentor.com> References: <1402178205-22697-1-git-send-email-steve_longerbeam@mentor.com> <1402178205-22697-5-git-send-email-steve_longerbeam@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Am Samstag, den 07.06.2014, 14:56 -0700 schrieb Steve Longerbeam: > Signed-off-by: Jiada Wang > --- > drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipu-v3/ipu-common.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/platform_data/imx-ipu-v3.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipu-v3/ipu-common.c b/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipu-v3/ipu-common.c > index f8e8c56..2d95a7c 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipu-v3/ipu-common.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/imx-drm/ipu-v3/ipu-common.c > @@ -829,10 +829,28 @@ static struct ipu_devtype ipu_type_imx6q = { > .type = IPUV3H, > }; > > +static struct ipu_devtype ipu_type_imx6dl = { > + .name = "IPUv3HDL", > + .cm_ofs = 0x00200000, > + .cpmem_ofs = 0x00300000, > + .srm_ofs = 0x00340000, > + .tpm_ofs = 0x00360000, > + .csi0_ofs = 0x00230000, > + .csi1_ofs = 0x00238000, > + .disp0_ofs = 0x00240000, > + .disp1_ofs = 0x00248000, > + .smfc_ofs = 0x00250000, > + .ic_ofs = 0x00220000, > + .vdi_ofs = 0x00268000, > + .dc_tmpl_ofs = 0x00380000, > + .type = IPUV3HDL, > +}; This just duplicates ipu_type_imx6. Do I understand correctly that this new type was added just to account for the different input multiplexer setup between i.MX6Q and i.MX6DL outside of the IPU? This would not be necessary if we describe the multiplexers as separate v4l2_subdev entities. The same applies to the following patch 05/43. regards Philipp