Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 08/12/2015 06:56 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Eric Anholt <eric@xxxxxxxxxx> > > This one definitely needs a patch description, since someone might not > know what a VC4 is, and "git log" won't show the text from the binding > doc itself. I'd suggest adding the initial paragraph of the binding doc > as the patch description, or more. > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/brcm,bcm-vc4.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/brcm,bcm-vc4.txt >> +- hvss: List of references to HVS video scalers >> +- encoders: List of references to output encoders (HDMI, SDTV) > > Would it make sense to make all those nodes child node of the vc4 > object. That way, there's no need to have these lists of objects; they > can be automatically built up as the DT is enumerated. I know that e.g. > the NVIDIA Tegra host1x binding works this way, and I think it may have > been inspired by other similar cases. I've looked at tegra, and the component system used by msm appears to be nicer than it. To follow tegra's model, it looks like I need to build this extra bus thing corresponding to host1x that is effectively the drivers/base/component.c code, so that I can get at vc4's structure from the component drivers. > Of course, this is only appropriate if the HW modules really are > logically children of the VC4 HW module. Perhaps they aren't. If they > aren't though, I wonder what this "vc4" module actually represents in HW? It's the subsystem, same as we use a subsystem node for msm, sti, rockchip, imx, and exynos. This appears to be the common model of how the collection of graphics-related components is represented in the DT.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
