Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] devicetree: bindings: Document Renesas JPEG Processing Unit.

Laurent Pinchart
2014-08-27T06:05:25Z

On Wednesday 27 August 2014 14:15:01 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:03:34AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Simon Horman wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Mikhail Ulyanov wrote:
> >>>>>> + - compatible: should containg one of the following:
> >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7790" for R-Car H2
> >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7791" for R-Car M2
> >>>>>> + - "renesas,jpu-gen2" for R-Car second
> >>>>>> generation
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't "renesas,jpu-gen2" meant as a fallback?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I.e. the DTS should have one of '7790 and '7791, AND the gen2
> >>>>> fallback, so we can make the driver match against '7790 and '7791 is
> >>>>> we find out about an incompatibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there a document that clearly states that there is such a thing
> >>>> as jpu-gen2 in hardware? If not I would prefer not to add a binding
> >>>> for it.
> >>>
> >>> We do have a document that describes the "JPEG Processing Unit (JPU)",
> >>> as found in the following members of the "Second Generation R-Car
> >>> Series Products": "R-Car H2", "R-Car M2-W", "R-Car M2-N", and "R-Car
> >>> V2H".
> >>
> >> Oh, that is nice :)
> >>
> >> From my point of view that ticks a lot of boxes.
> >> But I wonder if we can come up with a better name than jpu,-gen2.
> >
> > "jpu-rcar-gen2"?
>
> I guess that is a slight improvement.
>
> But suppose some gen2 SoC exists or comes to exists that
> has different IP. Suppose there is more than one that same
> the same IP that is different to the SoCs covered by the
> existing compat string?

That's exactly the information we need to request from the hardware team :-)

--
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart