On 24.11.2012 21:11, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 09:09:11AM +0200, Terje Bergström wrote: >> The host1x specifics (number of channels, pts etc) are description of >> hardware, so they could go to a device tree binding. > > I'm not sure that's even required. The number of syncpoints and channels > should be static for a particular version of SoC, right? In that case it > can be derived from the DT compatible property, can't it? I might be a bit confused here about the purpose of device trees. The register aperture, irqs and enumerated list of devices could also be derived from the information about host1x compatibility properly. They don't change within SoC version. Why do we have them in device tree? I have considered device trees to be the alternative to being able to query hardware. As we can't ask the hardware the number of sync points and channels, we should have them in device trees in the same way as we have IO apertures and list of client modules. Terje -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
