On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:27:43AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 10:03:34AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 1:57 AM, Simon Horman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 02:59:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Mikhail Ulyanov > >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > + - compatible: should containg one of the following: > >> >> > + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7790" for R-Car H2 > >> >> > + - "renesas,jpu-r8a7791" for R-Car M2 > >> >> > + - "renesas,jpu-gen2" for R-Car second > >> >> > generation > >> >> > >> >> Isn't "renesas,jpu-gen2" meant as a fallback? > >> >> > >> >> I.e. the DTS should have one of '7790 and '7791, AND the gen2 fallback, > >> >> so we can make the driver match against '7790 and '7791 is we find > >> >> out about an incompatibility. > >> > > >> > Is there a document that clearly states that there is such a thing > >> > as jpu-gen2 in hardware? If not I would prefer not to add a binding for > >> > it. > >> > >> We do have a document that describes the "JPEG Processing Unit (JPU)", > >> as found in the following members of the "Second Generation R-Car Series > >> Products": "R-Car H2", "R-Car M2-W", "R-Car M2-N", and "R-Car V2H". > > > > Oh, that is nice :) > > > > From my point of view that ticks a lot of boxes. > > But I wonder if we can come up with a better name than jpu,-gen2. > > "jpu-rcar-gen2"?
I guess that is a slight improvement. But suppose some gen2 SoC exists or comes to exists that has different IP. Suppose there is more than one that same the same IP that is different to the SoCs covered by the existing compat string? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
