On 1/9/24 1:17 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 09/01/2024 20:04, Andrew Davis wrote:
On 1/9/24 12:59 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
On 09/01/2024 18:19, Andrew Davis wrote:
This binding will be used for GPUs starting from Series6 (Rogue)
and later. A different binding document will describe Series5.
With that the name "img,powervr" is too generic, rename to
"img,powervr-rogue" to avoid confusion.
Suggested-by: Maxime Ripard <mripard@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd@xxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas <javierm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Frank Binns <frank.binns@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
Why do you send new version while we still talk about previous?
Please implement feedback from v1 (and this is v2, so next is v3) or
keep discussing.
I agreed with everything you said in the last round (RFC v2) and
made all requested changes. Did I miss something in this version?
The recommendation is that naming of the file matches generic compatible
and your file has only one generic compatible. Therefore I don't
understand why you claimed there are multiple compatibles.
I said "There are (or will be) multiple compatible strings", the rest
are on the way. So I didn't want to make this file less generic when
other bindings are almost ready.
Frank, can you help here, I'm assuming you have "img,img-bxs" and
"img,img-8xe" bindings staged for upstreaming somewhere; you'll be
putting those in this same file, right?
Thanks,
Andrew
Best regards,
Krzysztof
