From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?VGVyamUgQmVyZ3N0csO2bQ==?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] video: tegra: Add nvhost driver Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:02:43 +0200 Message-ID: <50B127E3.3080404@nvidia.com> References: <1353577684-7896-1-git-send-email-tbergstrom@nvidia.com> <1353577684-7896-2-git-send-email-tbergstrom@nvidia.com> <20121123233855.GD21555@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <50B07084.40707@nvidia.com> <20121124190416.GC26154@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20121124190416.GC26154-RM9K5IK7kjIyiCvfTdI0JKcOhU4Rzj621B7CTYaBSLdn68oJJulU0Q@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Arto Merilainen List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org I'll reply to the rest later, but here some initial comments. On 24.11.2012 21:04, Thierry Reding wrote: > The usual way to do this is to adapt downstream kernels to upstream > changes, not the other way around. Yep, we're doing both ways - leveraging downstream and upstream code. > Some more documentation about host1x would certainly be very welcome. If > you write something up, maybe you can push to get it included in the TRM > as well. The host1x chapter in the TRM is a bit sketchy and something > more like a programming guide would be really useful. Got it. I hope user space code would help here, as it would be a definite explanation of how the thing is supposed to be used. > Funny enough, the chapter about the 2D engine says that it is merely > there to document the registers and explicitly not as a programming > guide because it is expected that NVIDIA supplied drivers will always be > used. I had a good laugh when I read that. =) Ouch. :-) > The benefit is that smaller changes that add a single particular feature > are a lot easier to review and verify. Yep, I'm working on this. I think I found a way. > But that's precisely my point. If the hardware is called host1x, why not > call the driver host1x as well. We do the same for all other hardware > blocks. The I2C controller driver is named i2c-tegra just as the RTC > driver is named rtc-tegra. Why should the driver for host1x not be named > host1x? Ok, I got it. Terje