On 08/05/2013 04:37 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 08/05/2013 06:53 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 08/03/2013 03:41 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>> On 08/02/2013 05:02 PM, Arun Kumar K wrote: >>>> The patch adds the DT binding documentation for Samsung >>>> Exynos5 SoC series imaging subsystem (FIMC-IS). >> >>>> diff --git >>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos5-fimc-is.txt >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos5-fimc-is.txt >>>> new file mode 100644 >>>> index 0000000..49a373a >>>> --- /dev/null >>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/exynos5-fimc-is.txt >>>> @@ -0,0 +1,52 @@ >>>> +Samsung EXYNOS5 SoC series Imaging Subsystem (FIMC-IS) >>>> +------------------------------------------------------ >>>> + >>>> +The camera subsystem on Samsung Exynos5 SoC has some changes relative >>>> +to previous SoC versions. Exynos5 has almost similar MIPI-CSIS and >>>> +FIMC-LITE IPs but has a much improved version of FIMC-IS which can >>>> +handle sensor controls and camera post-processing operations. The >>>> +Exynos5 FIMC-IS has a dedicated ARM Cortex A5 processor, many >>>> +post-processing blocks (ISP, DRC, FD, ODC, DIS, 3DNR) and two >>>> +dedicated scalers (SCC and SCP). >> >> So there are a lot of blocks mentioned there, yet the binding doesn't >> seem to describe most of it. Is the binding complete? > > Thanks for the review Stephen. > > No, the binding certainly isn't complete, it doesn't describe the all > available IP blocks. There are separate MMIO address regions for each ... > So while we could list all the devices, we decided not to do so. > Because it is not needed by the current software and we may miss some > details for case where the whole subsystem is controlled by the host > CPU (however such scenario is extremely unlikely AFAICT) which then > would be impossible or hard to change. Yes, that's probably a good approach. > I guess we should list all available devices, similarly as it's done > in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/nvidia,tegra20-host1x.txt. > > And then should they just be disabled through the status property > if they are not needed in the Linux driver ? I guess it is more > sensible than marking them as optional and then not listing them > in dts at all ? If you can define complete bindings for those nodes, it might make sense to do that. If the devices are perhaps complex to represent and hence you might not be able to come up with complete bindings for them right now, it may indeed be better to simply not mention the devices you don't care about for now. >>>> +pmu subnode >>>> +----------- >>>> + >>>> +Required properties: >>>> + - reg : should contain PMU physical base address and size of the >>>> memory >>>> + mapped registers. >> >> I think you need a compatible value for this. How else is the node >> identified? The node name probably should not be used for identification. > > Of course the node name is currently used for identification. There is no > compatible property because this pmu node is used to get hold of only part > of the Power Management Unit registers, specific to the FIMC-IS. > The PMU has more registers that also other drivers would be interested in, > e.g. clocks or USB. I believe the correct way to solve this is for there to be a standalone PMU node at the appropriate location in DT, and for the FIMC bindings to reference that other node by phandle. Right now, the FIMC driver SW can manually follow the phandle, look at the reg property, and map that itself. Later down the road, you could instantiate a true PMU driver, and have the FIMC driver look up that driver, and call APIs on it. This change can be made without requiring any changes to the DT binding. That way, you aren't introducing a fake PMU node into the FIMC bindings just to satisfy internal Linux driver details. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
