On 07/08/2023 17:02, Konrad Dybcio wrote: > On 7.08.2023 16:04, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >> On 07/08/2023 14:41, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>> On 5.08.2023 21:29, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>>> On 04/08/2023 22:09, Konrad Dybcio wrote: >>>>> Both of these SoCs implement an IRIS2 block, with SC8280XP being able >>>>> to clock it a bit higher. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + iommus: >>>>> + maxItems: 1 >>>>> + >>>>> + video-decoder: >>>>> + type: object >>>>> + >>>>> + properties: >>>>> + compatible: >>>>> + const: venus-decoder >>>> >>>> That's not how compatibles are constructed... missing vendor prefix, SoC >>>> or IP block name. >>>> >>>>> + >>>>> + required: >>>>> + - compatible >>>>> + >>>>> + additionalProperties: false >>>> >>>> Why do you need this child node? Child nodes without properties are >>>> usually useless. >>> For both comments: I aligned with what was there.. >>> >>> The driver abuses these compats to probe enc/dec submodules, even though >>> every Venus implementation (to my knowledge) is implicitly enc/dec capable.. >> >> Holy crap, I see... >> >>> >>> Perhaps a bigger clean-up is due. I guess I could just create the venc/vdec >>> devices from the venus core probe and get rid of this fake stuff? >> >> Few devices (qcom,msm8996-venus.yaml, sdm660, sdm845) have clocks there, >> so we actually could stay with these subnodes, just correct the >> compatibles to a list with correct prefixes: >> >> qcom,sc8280xp-venus-decoder + qcom,venus-decoder > Hm.. looks like pre-845-v2 (with the v2 being "v2 binding" and not > "v2 chip" or "v2 hardware") these were used to look up clocks but > then they were moved to the root node. > > I am not quite sure if it makes sense to distinguish e.g. > sc8280xp-venus-decoder within sc8280xp-venus..> > Perhaps deprecating the "8916 way" (clocks under subnodes), adding > some boilerplate to look up clocks/pds in both places and converting > everybody to the "7180 way" way of doing things (clocks under venus), > and then getting rid of venus encoder/decoder completely (by calling > device creation from venus probe) would be better. WDYT? Yes, this makes more sense. I think this is controlled by "legacy_binding" variable (see drivers/media/platform/qcom/venus/pm_helpers.c). Once all bindings are converted to new one (clocks in main/parent node), then we can drop the children and instantiate devices as MFD. Best regards, Krzysztof
