On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 11:37:00AM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 10:47 AM Kieran Bingham wrote: > > On 13/12/2019 00:48, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 09, 2019 at 12:41:07PM +0000, Kieran Bingham wrote: > >>> On 13/09/2019 10:03, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:21:29AM +0200, Simon Horman wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 01:00:41PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > >>>>>> On 11.09.2019 22:25, Kieran Bingham wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Add direct support for the r8a77980 (V3H). > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The V3H shares a common, compatible configuration with the r8a77970 > >>>>>>> (V3M) so that device info structure is reused. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Do we really need to add yet another compatible in this case? > >>>>>> I just added r8a77970 to the compatible prop in the r8a77980 DT. That's why > >>>>>> a patch like this one didn't get posted by me. > >>>>> > >>>>> The reason for having per-SoC compat strings is that the IP blocks > >>>>> are not versioned and while we can observe that there are similarities > >>>>> between, f.e. the DU on the r8a77970 and r8a77980, we can't be certain that > >>>>> differences may not emerge at some point. By having per-SoC compat strings > >>>>> we have the flexibility for the driver to address any such differences as > >>>>> the need arises. > >>>>> > >>>>> My recollection is that this scheme has been adopted for non-versioned > >>>>> Renesas IP blocks since June 2015 and uses of this scheme well before that. > >>>> > >>>> Sure, but we could use > >>>> > >>>> compatible = "renesas,du-r8a77980", "renesas,du-r8a77970"; > > > > We already do in arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a77980.dtsi. > > > > However that is the *only* non r8a77980 reference in the file so it, > > itself looks *very* much out of place. > > > > > > Furthermore, the main purpose of this patch is that we clearly document > > the driver as supporting the r8a77980 in the bindings (No mention that > > you must use the ..970 binding), yet in actual fact - the driver could > > not currently support loading a device with the following compatible: > > > > compatible = "renesas,du-r8a77980"; > > > > > >>>> in DT without updating the driver. If the r8a77980 turns out to be > >>>> different, we'll then update the driver without a need to modify DT. I'm > >>>> fine either way, so > >>>> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> This patch has an RB tag from you, and Simon, but alas I don't believe > >>> it has been picked up in your drm/du/next branch. > >>> > >>> Is this patch acceptable? Or do I need to repost? > >> > >> Could you just confirm I should apply this patch, and not go for the > >> alternative proposal above ? > > > > I believe the alternative proposal above is what we have today isn't it? > > > > > > Yes, I do believe we should apply this patch. > > +1. > > I'm waiting for the driver part to go upstream, so I can apply the DTS patch. > Note that this will lead to a messy situation in LTS, as the DTS patch will > likely be backported, so the driver part must be backported, too. Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> and taken in my tree. > > I'm going to assume you haven't read the other arguments on this thread > > so I'll paste them here: > > Thanks for recollecting! ;-) -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
