On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 11:31:53AM +0300, Mikko Perttunen wrote: > Add YAML device tree bindings for NVDEC, now in a more appropriate > place compared to the old textual Host1x bindings. > > Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > v4: > * Fix incorrect compatibility string in 'if' condition > v3: > * Drop host1x bindings > * Change read2 to read-1 in interconnect names > v2: > * Fix issues pointed out in v1 > * Add T194 nvidia,instance property > --- > .../gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml | 109 ++++++++++++++++++ > MAINTAINERS | 1 + > 2 files changed, 110 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml > new file mode 100644 > index 000000000000..33d01c7dc759 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml > @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@ > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause) > +%YAML 1.2 > +--- > +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml#"; > +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"; > + > +title: Device tree binding for NVIDIA Tegra NVDEC > + > +description: | > + NVDEC is the hardware video decoder present on NVIDIA Tegra210 > + and newer chips. It is located on the Host1x bus and typically > + programmed through Host1x channels. > + > +maintainers: > + - Thierry Reding <treding@xxxxxxxxx> > + - Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@xxxxxxxxxx> > + > +properties: > + $nodename: > + pattern: "^nvdec@[0-9a-f]*$" > + > + compatible: > + enum: > + - nvidia,tegra210-nvdec > + - nvidia,tegra186-nvdec > + - nvidia,tegra194-nvdec > + > + reg: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + clocks: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + clock-names: > + items: > + - const: nvdec > + > + resets: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + reset-names: > + items: > + - const: nvdec > + > + power-domains: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + iommus: > + maxItems: 1 > + > + interconnects: > + items: > + - description: DMA read memory client > + - description: DMA read 2 memory client > + - description: DMA write memory client > + > + interconnect-names: > + items: > + - const: dma-mem > + - const: read-1 > + - const: write > + > +required: > + - compatible > + - reg > + - clocks > + - clock-names > + - resets > + - reset-names > + - power-domains > + > +if: > + properties: > + compatible: > + contains: > + const: nvidia,tegra194-nvdec > +then: > + properties: > + nvidia,instance: > + items: > + - description: 0 for NVDEC0, or 1 for NVDEC1 I still don't understand what this is needed for. What is the difference between the instances? There must be some reason you care. We should describe that difference, not some made up index. I'm not suggesting using the base address either. That's fragile too. > + > +additionalProperties: true 'true' here is not allowed unless the schema is not complete and intended to be included in a complete schema or unconditionally applied (i.e. 'select: true'). This case is neither. As pointed out previously, 'unevaluatedProperties' is what you'd want here. However, I looked into supporting defining properties in if/then/else schemas as you have done and I don't think we will support that soon. It's problematic because we can't validate the schema under the if/then completely. The reason is properties under if/then schemas don't have to be complete as we expect a top level definition that is complete (e.g. vendor properties must have 'description'). To solve this, we'd have to only apply meta-schema checks if the property doesn't appear at the top level. That's more complicated than I care to implement ATM. Rob
