On 09/01/2024 20:33, Andrew Davis wrote: > 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 OK. > 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? > That's fine then. Best regards, Krzysztof
