Re: [PATCH 1/8] media: dt-bindings: qcom-kaanapali-iris: Add kaanapali video codec binding

Vikash Garodia
2025-09-26T13:55:39Z

On 9/26/2025 5:17 PM, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 9/25/25 9:38 PM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 01:01:29AM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/26/2025 12:55 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025 at 04:44:39AM +0530, Vikash Garodia wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> + power-domains:
>>>>> + minItems: 5
>>>>> + maxItems: 7
>>>>
>>>> You are sending bindings for a single device on a single platform. How
>>>> comes that it has min != max?
>>>
>>> I was planning to reuse this binding for the variant SOCs of kaanapali/vpu4. If
>>> we do not have min interface, then for those variants, we have to either have
>>> separate bindings or add if/else conditions(?). Introducing min now can make it
>>> easily usable for upcoming vpu4 variants.
>>
>> No, it makes it harder to follow the changes. This platform has
>> this-and-that requirements. Then you add another platform and it's clear
>> that the changes are for that platform. Now you have mixed two different
>> patches into a single one.
>
> Vikash, preparing for future submissions is a very good thing,
> however "a binding" can be thought of as a tuple of
>
> (compatible, allowed_properties, required_properties)
>
> which needs(asterisk) to remain immutable
>
> You can make changes to this file later, when introducing said
> platforms and it will be fine, so long as you preserve the same allowed
> and required properties that you're trying to associate with Kanaapali
> here

Let say, we have a kaanapali hardware (calling it as kaanapali_next) with 6
power domains, instead of 7, given that one of the pipe is malfunctional or
fused out in that hardware distrubution, should the binding be extended for such
variant like below ?

power-domains:
maxItems: 7

- if:
properties:
compatible:
enum:
- qcom,kaanapali_next-iris
then:
properties:
power-domains:
maxItems: 6

else:
properties:
power-domains:
maxItems: 7

Also, what is the downside in existing approach where we say that the hardware
can be functional with 5 pds, and 2 are optional based on hardware having them
or not ? So all combinations of [5, 6, 7] pds are valid. IIUC, the optional
entries are made for such cases where some hardware parts are variable, please
correct my understanding.

Regards,
Vikash

> (i.e. YAML refactors are OK but the result must come out identical)
>
> Konrad