| Message ID | 20170926100605.2313-5-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable |
| Delegated to: | Geert Uytterhoeven |
| Headers | show |
Hi Laurent, On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > The FCP instances associated with a VSPI must be treated differently > than the ones associated with another type of VSP. Add a new compatible > string to allow telling them apart. > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > index 3ec91803ba58..c1f28736e2d6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ are paired with. These DT bindings currently support the FCPV and FCPF. > > - compatible: Must be one or more of the following > > - - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' > + - "renesas,fcpvi" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSPI' > + - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' (all other VSPs) > - "renesas,fcpf" for generic compatible 'FCP for FDP' You may want to update the paragraph before that, referring to three types of FCP. It seems there's also a similar split for FCPC? So that makes (at least) 5 types. Just wondering: as FCPVI vs. FCPV is programmable through the FCPVSEL bit, can you deduce the type using the renesas,fcp link in the corresponding VSP node in DT? Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org 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
Hi Geert, On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 14:47:35 EEST Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > The FCP instances associated with a VSPI must be treated differently > > than the ones associated with another type of VSP. Add a new compatible > > string to allow telling them apart. > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> > > --- > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt index > > 3ec91803ba58..c1f28736e2d6 100644 > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > > @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ are paired with. These DT bindings currently support the > > FCPV and FCPF.> > > - compatible: Must be one or more of the following > > > > - - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' > > + - "renesas,fcpvi" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSPI' > > + - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' (all other VSPs) > > > > - "renesas,fcpf" for generic compatible 'FCP for FDP' > > You may want to update the paragraph before that, referring to three types > of FCP. As far as I know the FCP-VSPI and FCP-VSP[^I] are the same type of device, with different SoC integration. > It seems there's also a similar split for FCPC? So that makes (at > least) 5 types. There's little documentation on the FCPC unfortunately, so I'm not sure how we should handle it. > Just wondering: as FCPVI vs. FCPV is programmable through the FCPVSEL > bit, can you deduce the type using the renesas,fcp link in the corresponding > VSP node in DT? You could possibly, if you had a link from the FCP to the VSP in DT. As there's none, the type can't be currently inferred from DT at probe time. We could pass the type from the VSP driver to the FCP driver, but I'm not sure I want to go that way. If the FCP-VSPI and VSP[^I] are identicaly and need different software configuration due to being used by different types of VSPs it would make sense, but if there are hardware differences between the FCPs then I think they should be described in DT.
Hi Laurent, On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 14:47:35 EEST Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> > The FCP instances associated with a VSPI must be treated differently >> > than the ones associated with another type of VSP. Add a new compatible >> > string to allow telling them apart. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart >> > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> >> > --- >> > >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt | 3 ++- >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt >> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt index >> > 3ec91803ba58..c1f28736e2d6 100644 >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt >> > @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ are paired with. These DT bindings currently support the >> > FCPV and FCPF.> >> > - compatible: Must be one or more of the following >> > >> > - - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' >> > + - "renesas,fcpvi" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSPI' >> > + - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' (all other VSPs) >> > >> > - "renesas,fcpf" for generic compatible 'FCP for FDP' >> >> You may want to update the paragraph before that, referring to three types >> of FCP. > > As far as I know the FCP-VSPI and FCP-VSP[^I] are the same type of device, > with different SoC integration. OK. So they should use the same compatible value? >> Just wondering: as FCPVI vs. FCPV is programmable through the FCPVSEL >> bit, can you deduce the type using the renesas,fcp link in the corresponding >> VSP node in DT? > > You could possibly, if you had a link from the FCP to the VSP in DT. As > there's none, the type can't be currently inferred from DT at probe time. We > could pass the type from the VSP driver to the FCP driver, but I'm not sure I > want to go that way. If the FCP-VSPI and VSP[^I] are identicaly and need > different software configuration due to being used by different types of VSPs > it would make sense, but if there are hardware differences between the FCPs > then I think they should be described in DT. Given the FCPVSEL bit, it looks like there's no difference, and software is supposed to specify configuration. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org 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
Hi Geert, On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 15:46:59 EEST Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:39 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > On Tuesday, 26 September 2017 14:47:35 EEST Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> > The FCP instances associated with a VSPI must be treated differently > >> > than the ones associated with another type of VSP. Add a new compatible > >> > string to allow telling them apart. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > >> > <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> > >> > --- > >> > > >> > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt | 3 ++- > >> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > > >> > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > >> > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt index > >> > 3ec91803ba58..c1f28736e2d6 100644 > >> > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > >> > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt > >> > @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ are paired with. These DT bindings currently support > >> > the FCPV and FCPF. > >> > > >> > - compatible: Must be one or more of the following > >> > - - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' > >> > + - "renesas,fcpvi" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSPI' > >> > + - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' (all other > >> > VSPs) > >> > - "renesas,fcpf" for generic compatible 'FCP for FDP' > >> > >> You may want to update the paragraph before that, referring to three > >> types of FCP. > > > > As far as I know the FCP-VSPI and FCP-VSP[^I] are the same type of device, > > with different SoC integration. > > OK. So they should use the same compatible value? > > >> Just wondering: as FCPVI vs. FCPV is programmable through the FCPVSEL > >> bit, can you deduce the type using the renesas,fcp link in the > >> corresponding VSP node in DT? > > > > You could possibly, if you had a link from the FCP to the VSP in DT. As > > there's none, the type can't be currently inferred from DT at probe time. > > We could pass the type from the VSP driver to the FCP driver, but I'm not > > sure I want to go that way. If the FCP-VSPI and VSP[^I] are identicaly > > and need different software configuration due to being used by different > > types of VSPs it would make sense, but if there are hardware differences > > between the FCPs then I think they should be described in DT. > > Given the FCPVSEL bit, it looks like there's no difference, and software is > supposed to specify configuration. That's hard to tell for sure, it could be that there are hardware differences that require a different software configuration. I'll keep your comment in mind for the next version though, and will try to get more information from Renesas.
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt index 3ec91803ba58..c1f28736e2d6 100644 --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt @@ -11,7 +11,8 @@ are paired with. These DT bindings currently support the FCPV and FCPF. - compatible: Must be one or more of the following - - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' + - "renesas,fcpvi" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSPI' + - "renesas,fcpv" for generic compatible 'FCP for VSP' (all other VSPs) - "renesas,fcpf" for generic compatible 'FCP for FDP' - reg: the register base and size for the device registers
The FCP instances associated with a VSPI must be treated differently than the ones associated with another type of VSP. Add a new compatible string to allow telling them apart. Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> --- Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/renesas,fcp.txt | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)