| Message ID | 1416309051-26784-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 18/11/14 13:10, Hans de Goede wrote: > If pre-filled framebuffer nodes are used, the firmware may need extra > properties to find the right node. This documents the properties to use > for this on sunxi platforms. > > Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> > Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> > --- > .../bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..c46ba64 > --- /dev/null > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt > @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ > +Sunxi specific Simple Framebuffer bindings > + > +This binding documents sunxi specific extensions to the simple-framebuffer > +bindings. The sunxi simplefb u-boot code relies on the devicetree containing > +pre-populated simplefb nodes. > + > +These extensions are intended so that u-boot can select the right node based > +on which pipeline is being used. As such they are solely intended for > +firmware / bootloader use, and the OS should ignore them. > + > +Required properties: > +- compatible: "allwinner,simple-framebuffer" > +- allwinner,pipeline, one of: Sorry my ignorance, but what's sunxi and what's allwinner? Both names are mixed here. Tomi
Hi, On 11/25/2014 01:32 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 18/11/14 13:10, Hans de Goede wrote: >> If pre-filled framebuffer nodes are used, the firmware may need extra >> properties to find the right node. This documents the properties to use >> for this on sunxi platforms. >> >> Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com> >> Acked-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org> >> --- >> .../bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt >> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt >> new file mode 100644 >> index 0000000..c46ba64 >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt >> @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ >> +Sunxi specific Simple Framebuffer bindings >> + >> +This binding documents sunxi specific extensions to the simple-framebuffer >> +bindings. The sunxi simplefb u-boot code relies on the devicetree containing >> +pre-populated simplefb nodes. >> + >> +These extensions are intended so that u-boot can select the right node based >> +on which pipeline is being used. As such they are solely intended for >> +firmware / bootloader use, and the OS should ignore them. >> + >> +Required properties: >> +- compatible: "allwinner,simple-framebuffer" >> +- allwinner,pipeline, one of: > > Sorry my ignorance, but what's sunxi and what's allwinner? Both names > are mixed here. sunxi is the sun#i SoCs from Allwinner, Allwinner is the manufacturer and the SoC "code" names used everywhere in the kernel for their SoCs are sun4i, sun5i, sun6i, etc. Most people refer to these SoCs as sunxi. This is also what the linux-sunxi mailinglist in the Cc is about. The official devicetree vendor prefix for Allwinner is allwinner, hence the allwinner in the compatible name, see e.g. also Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/sun4i-lradc-keys.txt Which also uses sunxi / sun4i everywhere except in the compatible vendor prefix. Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 25/11/14 14:52, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> +Required properties: >>> +- compatible: "allwinner,simple-framebuffer" >>> +- allwinner,pipeline, one of: >> >> Sorry my ignorance, but what's sunxi and what's allwinner? Both names >> are mixed here. > > sunxi is the sun#i SoCs from Allwinner, Allwinner is the manufacturer > and the > SoC "code" names used everywhere in the kernel for their SoCs are sun4i, > sun5i, > sun6i, etc. Most people refer to these SoCs as sunxi. This is also what the > linux-sunxi mailinglist in the Cc is about. > > The official devicetree vendor prefix for Allwinner is allwinner, hence the > allwinner in the compatible name, see e.g. also > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/sun4i-lradc-keys.txt > > Which also uses sunxi / sun4i everywhere except in the compatible vendor > prefix. Alright, thanks for explanation. Shouldn't the compatible then be "allwinner,sunxi-simple-framebuffer", to differentiate from some other SoC Allwinner has or might create in the future? That is, presuming you're confident enough that a single compatible string covers all the current and forthcoming sunxi SoCs. Perhaps simplefb is a bit special case, but I usually feel better if the compatible string is defined in a more specific manner. In this case I'd have: allwinner,sun4i-simple-framebuffer allwinner,sun5i-simple-framebuffer allwinner,sun6i-simple-framebuffer so that if sun7i has totally different display controller, there would be no conflict. Tomi
Hi, On 11/25/2014 02:02 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 25/11/14 14:52, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>>> +Required properties: >>>> +- compatible: "allwinner,simple-framebuffer" >>>> +- allwinner,pipeline, one of: >>> >>> Sorry my ignorance, but what's sunxi and what's allwinner? Both names >>> are mixed here. >> >> sunxi is the sun#i SoCs from Allwinner, Allwinner is the manufacturer >> and the >> SoC "code" names used everywhere in the kernel for their SoCs are sun4i, >> sun5i, >> sun6i, etc. Most people refer to these SoCs as sunxi. This is also what the >> linux-sunxi mailinglist in the Cc is about. >> >> The official devicetree vendor prefix for Allwinner is allwinner, hence the >> allwinner in the compatible name, see e.g. also >> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/input/sun4i-lradc-keys.txt >> >> Which also uses sunxi / sun4i everywhere except in the compatible vendor >> prefix. > > Alright, thanks for explanation. > > Shouldn't the compatible then be "allwinner,sunxi-simple-framebuffer", > to differentiate from some other SoC Allwinner has or might create in > the future? That is, presuming you're confident enough that a single > compatible string covers all the current and forthcoming sunxi SoCs. This was discussed in an earlier thread, we (Ian Campbell, Grant and me) decided to settle on allwinner,simple-framebuffer to make it clear that these are allwinner extensions to the standard simple-framebuffer bindings, and that the node otherwise is simple-framebuffer compatible. We were afraid that e.g. sun4i-simple-framebuffer would signal that it is not a normal simple-framebuffer node, so we decided to go with just the allwinner, prefix to indicate that it uses allwinner specific extensions. Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 25/11/14 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Shouldn't the compatible then be "allwinner,sunxi-simple-framebuffer", >> to differentiate from some other SoC Allwinner has or might create in >> the future? That is, presuming you're confident enough that a single >> compatible string covers all the current and forthcoming sunxi SoCs. > > This was discussed in an earlier thread, we (Ian Campbell, Grant and me) Okay. Sorry for not having time at the moment to follow the discussions properly. =) > decided to settle on allwinner,simple-framebuffer to make it clear that > these are allwinner extensions to the standard simple-framebuffer bindings, > and that the node otherwise is simple-framebuffer compatible. > > We were afraid that e.g. sun4i-simple-framebuffer would signal that it > is not a normal simple-framebuffer node, so we decided to go with just > the allwinner, prefix to indicate that it uses allwinner specific > extensions. Wouldn't compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-simple-framebuffer", "simple-framebuffer"; tell that it's a simple-framebuffer, with allwinner's sun4i extensions? I guess you can have just "allwinner,simple-framebuffer", and then if a new Allwinner SoC has a totally different display controller, the documentation would specify that this property is for that SoC, and this another property is for that another SoC. But isn't the compatible string what's supposed to use in cases like this? And if the new SoC is not sunxi, but some totally other family, there's need for a new compatible string anyway, as "simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt" is for sunxi only. Tomi
Hi, On 11/25/2014 02:38 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 25/11/14 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote: > >>> Shouldn't the compatible then be "allwinner,sunxi-simple-framebuffer", >>> to differentiate from some other SoC Allwinner has or might create in >>> the future? That is, presuming you're confident enough that a single >>> compatible string covers all the current and forthcoming sunxi SoCs. >> >> This was discussed in an earlier thread, we (Ian Campbell, Grant and me) > > Okay. Sorry for not having time at the moment to follow the discussions > properly. =) > >> decided to settle on allwinner,simple-framebuffer to make it clear that >> these are allwinner extensions to the standard simple-framebuffer bindings, >> and that the node otherwise is simple-framebuffer compatible. >> >> We were afraid that e.g. sun4i-simple-framebuffer would signal that it >> is not a normal simple-framebuffer node, so we decided to go with just >> the allwinner, prefix to indicate that it uses allwinner specific >> extensions. > > Wouldn't > > compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-simple-framebuffer", "simple-framebuffer"; > > tell that it's a simple-framebuffer, with allwinner's sun4i extensions? > > I guess you can have just "allwinner,simple-framebuffer", and then if a > new Allwinner SoC has a totally different display controller, the > documentation would specify that this property is for that SoC, and this > another property is for that another SoC. But isn't the compatible > string what's supposed to use in cases like this? The only soc specific thing in the binding is the pipeline property string values, and we can always add new values to that, the rest is all generic, as simplefb is generic. As said Ian Campbell, Grant and me have decided on using this, and currently patches are already queued up for both the dts files and u-boot to use this, so unless there are really strong reasons to change it at this point I would prefer to keep this as is. Regards, Hans -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fbdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 25/11/14 15:45, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Wouldn't >> >> compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-simple-framebuffer", "simple-framebuffer"; >> >> tell that it's a simple-framebuffer, with allwinner's sun4i extensions? >> >> I guess you can have just "allwinner,simple-framebuffer", and then if a >> new Allwinner SoC has a totally different display controller, the >> documentation would specify that this property is for that SoC, and this >> another property is for that another SoC. But isn't the compatible >> string what's supposed to use in cases like this? > > The only soc specific thing in the binding is the pipeline property string > values, and we can always add new values to that, the rest is all generic, > as simplefb is generic. The thing I don't understand is that the compatible string states that "this covers all Allwinner SoCs", even if we have no idea what kind of SoCs those may be. And if it covers all kinds of SoCs, then it might as well be fully generic, not Allwinner specific. And if it's not fully generic, then having it cover all possible Allwinner SoCs doesn't make sense either. > As said Ian Campbell, Grant and me have decided on using this, and > currently > patches are already queued up for both the dts files and u-boot to use > this, > so unless there are really strong reasons to change it at this point I > would > prefer to keep this as is. Ok. Well, as I said, it does not look correct to me, but if everybody else agrees on it (and I see I didn't get any replies during the night), I'll be applying this today. Tomi
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c46ba64 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +Sunxi specific Simple Framebuffer bindings + +This binding documents sunxi specific extensions to the simple-framebuffer +bindings. The sunxi simplefb u-boot code relies on the devicetree containing +pre-populated simplefb nodes. + +These extensions are intended so that u-boot can select the right node based +on which pipeline is being used. As such they are solely intended for +firmware / bootloader use, and the OS should ignore them. + +Required properties: +- compatible: "allwinner,simple-framebuffer" +- allwinner,pipeline, one of: + "de_be0-lcd0" + "de_be1-lcd1" + "de_be0-lcd0-hdmi" + "de_be1-lcd1-hdmi" + +Example: + +chosen { + #address-cells = <1>; + #size-cells = <1>; + ranges; + + framebuffer@0 { + compatible = "allwinner,simple-framebuffer", "simple-framebuffer"; + allwinner,pipeline = "de_be0-lcd0-hdmi"; + clocks = <&pll5 1>, <&ahb_gates 36>, <&ahb_gates 43>, + <&ahb_gates 44>; + status = "disabled"; + }; +};