Hi Biju,
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 10:11 AM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] dt-bindings: display: Document Renesas RZ/G2L
> > DU bindings
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 6:31 PM Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > > The RZ/G2L LCD controller is composed of Frame Compression Processor
> > > (FCPVD), Video Signal Processor (VSPD), and Display Unit (DU).
> > >
> > > The DU module supports the following hardware features − Display
> > > Parallel Interface (DPI) and MIPI LINK Video Interface − Display
> > > timing master − Generates video timings − Selecting the polarity of
> > > output DCLK, HSYNC, VSYNC, and DE − Supports Progressive − Input data
> > > format (from VSPD): RGB888, RGB666 − Output data format: same as Input
> > > data format − Supporting Full HD (1920 pixels x 1080 lines) for
> > > MIPI-DSI Output − Supporting WXGA (1280 pixels x 800 lines) for
> > > Parallel Output
> > >
> > > This patch document DU module found on RZ/G2L LCDC.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for your patch!
> >
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/renesas,rzg2l-du.yaml
> > > @@ -0,0 +1,159 @@
> > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0-only OR BSD-2-Clause) %YAML 1.2
> > > +---
> > > +$id:
> > > +
> > > +title: Renesas RZ/G2L Display Unit (DU)
> > > +
> > > +maintainers:
> > > + - Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > + - Biju Das <biju.das.jz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > +
> > > +description: |
> > > + These DT bindings describe the Display Unit embedded in the Renesas
> > > +RZ/G2L
> > > + and RZ/V2L SoCs.
> > > +
> > > +properties:
> > > + compatible:
> > > + enum:
> > > + - renesas,du-r9a07g044c # for RZ/G2LC compatible DU
> > > + - renesas,du-r9a07g044l # for RZ/G2L compatible DU
> >
> > Please use the format "<manuf>,<soc>-<modulo>" for new bindings.
> >
>
> OK.
>
> > I thought there was no need to differentiate RZ/G2LC and RZ/G2L, as the
> > only difference is a wiring difference due to the limited number of pins on
> > the RZ/G2LC package, as per your confirmation[1]?
> > Hence please just use "renesas,r9a07g044-du".
>
> I cross checked HW manual, on the overview section(page 69) Supported
> DU channels on various SoC's are as below
>
> RZ/{G2L,V2L}
> − 1 channel MIPI DSI interface or 1channel parallel output interface selectable,
>
> RZ/G2LC
> − 1 channel MIPI DSI interface
>
> RZ/G2UL ( From RZ/G2UL hardware manual overview)
> − 1 channel parallel output interface.
>
> >
> > Do you want a family-specific compatible value ("rzg2l-"), as this IP block
> > is shared by (at least) RZ/GL(C), RZ/V2L, and RZ/G2UL?
>
> May be will conclude after the above discussion??
I don't insist on family-specific compatible values here, as the DUs on
RZ/G2UL and RZ/V2L may differ.
But RZ/G2L and RZ/G2LC are identical otherwise...
> > > +allOf:
> > > + - if:
> > > + properties:
> > > + compatible:
> > > + contains:
> > > + enum:
> > > + - renesas,du-r9a07g044c
> > > + then:
> > > + properties:
> > > + ports:
> > > + properties:
> > > + port@0:
> > > + description: DSI 0
> > > + required:
> > > + - port@0
> > > +
> > > + - if:
> > > + properties:
> > > + compatible:
> > > + contains:
> > > + enum:
> > > + - renesas,du-r9a07g044l
> > > + then:
> > > + properties:
> > > + ports:
> > > + properties:
> > > + port@0:
> > > + description: DPAD 0
> > > + port@1:
> > > + description: DSI 0
> > > + required:
> > > + - port@0
> > > + - port@1
> >
> > Having different port numbers for the common DSI0 output indeed complicates
> > matters ;-)
>
> But we could delete as per [1] for RZ/G2LC where it supports only DSI and [2] for RZ/G2UL where it supports only DPI, right?
>
> [1] https://github.com/renesas-rz/rz_linux-cip/blob/rz-5.10-cip1/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a07g044c2.dtsi#L24
>
> [2] https://github.com/renesas-rz/rz_linux-cip/blob/rz-5.10-cip1/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r9a07g043.dtsi#L1000
Yes we can. But as the internal hardware is the same, I think we
should keep the port numbers the same on RZ/G2L and RZ/G2LC.
For RZ/V2L, you probably want to treat it exactly the same as RZ/G2L,
i.e., the same port numbering.
For RZ/G2UL, you can use a different numbering, assuming no
family-specific compatible value is introduced.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
