On 7.08.2023 20:44, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote: > On 07/08/2023 16:02, 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? >> >> Konrad > > As I understand it though, for some classes of venus hardware - earlier, it was possible to have two encoders or two decoders and it really didn't - perhaps still doesn't matter which order they are declared in. > > That's the logic behind having a compat string that assigns either encoder or decoder to one of the logical blocks. > > You can have any mixture of > - encoder > - decoder > > - encoder > - encoder > > - decoder > - decoder > > - decoder > - encoder > > - encoder > > - decoder > > I think it should *still* be the case - whether it is a practical reality or not, that any of those mapping can be selected and supported. That can be taken care of with match data. Konrad
