On Mon, 2025-03-03 at 08:31 +0100, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 26/02/2025 23:41, Matthew Majewski wrote: > > > > As I wrote, supported devices/hardware is anything that provides a > > MEM_TO_MEM capable dma-controller with interleaved transfer > > support. I > > did not list specific devices because the bindings are supposed to > > be > > generic, as they are not describing actual silicon. But if you want > > me > > I already told you that no. Bindings are not supposed to be generic. > > From where did you get such information? There are generic bindings in the kernel and I based my bindings off of them. spi-gpio.yaml, i2c-gpio.yaml, video-mux.yaml, etc are all generic bindings, no? > > > to list some devices which provide a compatible dma-controller, > > here > > are devices I found in the current mainline kernel: > > > > - TI OMAP Soc Family > > - TI Davinci Soc Family > > - TI Keystone Processor Family > > - IMX27 Processor and variants > > - Several Microchip Processors (sama5, sam9x7, sam9x60) > > That's too generic - you just listed SoCs, which consist of dozen or > hundred of devices. Which hardware piece is here? > > Maybe this is not for a real device, but then this should be marked > clearly. > I listed devices that have a compatible dma-controller, so the list is a bit big, sorry. I also specifically mentioned the BeagleBone black board which I have been testing on. "m2m-deinterlace" used to be a part of the mach-imx27_visstrim_m10.c board file, but was removed with commit 879c0e5e0ac711 (ARM: imx: Remove i.MX27 board files). So at least the Vistrim M10 device was explicitly using the m2m-deinterlace device. When the move away from board files was made towards device-tree, m2m- deinterlace support was never ported over to device-tree. This is what I am doing now. And yes, m2m-deinterlace is not a "real device" if by "real device" you mean an actual piece of silicon on a specific piece of hardware. I think there is just some semantic confusion here. I will no longer refer to it as a "device" then, please let me know what the more appropriate term is and I will modify the description accordingly. > > > > I think an appropriate analogy for m2m-deinterlace would be spi- > > gpio. > > Since spi-gpio leverages gpio for bitbanging the spi protocol, the > > bindings do not need to describe any clocks, spi-controller > > registers, > > Sure, SPI GPIO is Linux driver, not a device and I am asking about it > all the time. > My point was that spi-gpio has dt-bindings even though these bindings do not describe a specific hardware device, hence it is "generic". Best, Matthew
