On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 10:15 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 09:44 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 8:56 PM, Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/17/2016 08:44 PM, Robert Nelson wrote:
>>> again.. a short commit message at least please? :)
>>
>>
>> yeah, i'll fix all those. ;)
>>
>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Nelson <robertcnelson@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Julien <jboulnois@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Nishanth Menon <nm@xxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx>
>>>> CC: Tony Lindgren <tony@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi | 11 +++++++++++
>>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi
>>>> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi
>>>> index 6df7829..3bc47be 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/am57xx-beagle-x15-common.dtsi
>>>> @@ -97,6 +97,12 @@
>>>> #cooling-cells = <2>;
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> + gpu-subsystem {
>>>
>>>
>>> A) do we want to make things clear that this is gpu subsystem for gc320?
>>> B) How about other platforms that could equally reuse?
>>
>>
>> so the 'gpu-subsystem' comes from etnaviv:
>>
>>
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/etnaviv/etnaviv-drm.txt?id=refs/tags/v4.9-rc5
>>
>> For a generic name, it's currently only tied to the etnaviv driver:
>>
>
> I was only complaining about "gpu-subsystem {", not the compatible. it is
> not the only gpu subsystem on the SoC. either "gpu-subsystem0 {" or
> something like gpu-subsystem-gc320 might be helpful to clarify.
>
>> gpu-subsystem {
>> compatible = "fsl,imx-gpu-subsystem";
>> cores = <&gpu_2d>, <&gpu_3d>;
>> };
>>
>> it would make sense to make that more generic, so you could tie a 2d
>> vivante and a imgtec/sgx 3d core.. <sad laugh> but that would require
>> adding a imgtec/sgx driver/bindings to the kernel mainline... </sad
>> laugh>
>>
>
> I should have clarified... I meant other dra7 devices to reuse the same
> definitions. this definition is not by any means constrained to EVM - it is
> a SoC definition, it should be moved to appropriate place (convention for
> dra7 is to mark them as disabled by default in SoC.dtsi to prevent
> proliferation of paper spin dtsi and just do "status = okay" in board file
> to indicate presence in the variation for the board).
Oh yeah, defintely, we can move gpu-subsystem to the base dra7.dtsi,
as the whole dra.dtsi family has a gc320 and then the board device
tree can enable it via:
&bb2d {
status = "okay";
};
Regards,
--
Robert Nelson
https://rcn-ee.com/
--
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
