On Mittwoch, 11. Mai 2022 18:00:09 CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 11/05/2022 17:53, Nicolas Frattaroli wrote: > > The RK3568 and RK3566 have a Hantro VPU node solely dedicated to > > encoding. This patch adds a compatible for it, and also allows > > the bindings to only come with a vepu interrupt. > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Frattaroli <frattaroli.nicolas@xxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > .../devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip-vpu.yaml | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip-vpu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip-vpu.yaml > > index bacb60a34989..965ca80b5cea 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip-vpu.yaml > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/rockchip-vpu.yaml > > @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ properties: > > - rockchip,rk3288-vpu > > - rockchip,rk3328-vpu > > - rockchip,rk3399-vpu > > + - rockchip,rk3568-vepu > > - rockchip,px30-vpu > > - items: > > - const: rockchip,rk3188-vpu > > @@ -39,7 +40,9 @@ properties: > > > > interrupt-names: > > oneOf: > > - - const: vdpu > > + - enum: > > + - vdpu > > + - vepu > > - items: > > - const: vepu > > - const: vdpu > > @@ -76,6 +79,18 @@ required: > > > > additionalProperties: false > > > > +allOf: > > + # compatibles that end in -vepu should only have the vepu interrupt > > + - if: > > + properties: > > + compatible: > > + contains: > > + pattern: "^[a-zA-Z0-9\\-,_.]+\\-vepu$" > > Why not listing the compatible how I asked? This is the common way of > handling allOf:if:then per variant. Because I was afraid that if this wasn't general enough to apply to all future vepu-only instances of Hantro, then my patch might be bikeshed into requiring a v4. Clearly, my worries had the opposite effect. Also because I thought it was cool to use a pattern for this to enforce consistent naming in the bindings. > > https://lore.kernel.org/all/ea94f18d-3172-98bb-0892-a98236a08018@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > Your patches do not apply on next, so the set might not have been tested > by Rob's bot. Good to know. Once I send out v4 in a few days and maybe after some more opinions so I can stop bombarding the mailing list with tiny revisions of the same patch set, I will base it on linux-next. I'm happy to report though that this passes dt_binding_check with W=1 without adding any new warnings. I do actually run those checks (and checkpatch) before submitting. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Regards, Nicolas Frattaroli
