On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:56:20AM +0200, Paul Kocialkowski wrote: > > > I agree that the term VPU is more commonly associated with video > > > decoding, while video engine could mean a number of things. > > > > > > The reason I went with "video-engine" here (while still presenting > > > the > > > driver as a VPU driver) is that Video Engine is the term used in > > > Allwinner's litterature. Other nodes in Allwinner device-trees > > > generally > > > stick to these terms (for instance, we have "display-engine" nodes). > > > This also makes it easier to find the matching parts in the > > > documentation. > > > > 'video-codec' is what is defined in the DT spec. > > Is that an actively-enforced guideline or a suggestion? I'd like to keep > video-engine just to stick with the technical documentation wording and > my personal taste is also to prefer vpu over video-codec (in terms of > clarity/straightforwardness) as a second choice. > > Still, if the choice isn't up to me, we can go with video-codec (or > vpu). The unit-name is supposed to reflect the class of the device, and nothing else. If there's already a pre-existing class name defined for these kind of devices, then there's no point in choosing something else. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons) Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
