On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 08:47:51AM +0000, Ying Liu wrote: > > > This dt-binding just follows generic dt-binding rule to describe the DPU IP > > > hardware, not the software implementation. DPU internal units do not > > > constitute separate devices. > > > > I mean, your driver does split them into separate devices so surely it > > constitutes separate devices. > > My driver treats them as DPU internal units, especially not Linux devices. > > Let's avoid Linuxisms when implementing this dt-binding and just be simple > to describe necessary stuff exposing to DPU's embodying system/SoC, like > reg, interrupts, clocks and power-domains. Let's focus the conversation here, because it's redundant with the rest. Your driver registers two additional devices, that have a different register space, different clocks, different interrupts, different power domains, etc. That has nothing to do with Linux, it's hardware properties. That alone is a very good indication to me that these devices should be modeled as such. And your driver agrees. Whether or not the other internal units need to be described as separate devices, I can't really tell, I don't have the datasheet. But at least the CRTC and the interrupt controller should be split away, or explained and detailed far better than "well it's just convenient". Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
