On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 08:59:38AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Monday, 15 January 2018 08:55:29 EET Simon Horman wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 03:29:48PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Friday, 12 January 2018 12:13:18 EET Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:58 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > >>> The Renesas R-Car Gen2 and Gen3 SoCs have internal LVDS encoders. Add > > >>> corresponding device tree bindings. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart > > >>> <laurent.pinchart+rene...@ideasonboard.com> > > >>> > > >>> --- /dev/null > > >>> +++ > > >>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/renesas,lvds.txt > > >>> @@ -0,0 +1,54 @@ > > >>> +Renesas R-Car LVDS Encoder > > >>> +========================== > > >>> + > > >>> +These DT bindings describe the LVDS encoder embedded in the Renesas > > >>> R-Car Gen2 +and Gen3 SoCs. > > >>> + > > >>> +Required properties: > > >>> + > > >>> +- compatible : Shall contain one of > > >>> + - "renesas,lvds-r8a7743" for R8A7790 (R-Car RZ/G1M) compatible LVDS > > >>> encoders > > >>> + - "renesas,lvds-r8a7790" for R8A7790 (R-Car H2) compatible LVDS > > >>> encoders > > >>> + - "renesas,lvds-r8a7791" for R8A7791 (R-Car M2-W) compatible LVDS > > >>> encoders > > >>> + - "renesas,lvds-r8a7793" for R8A7791 (R-Car M2-N) compatible LVDS > > >>> encoders > > >>> + - "renesas,lvds-r8a7795" for R8A7795 (R-Car H3) compatible LVDS > > >>> encoders > > >>> + - "renesas,lvds-r8a7796" for R8A7796 (R-Car M3-W) compatible LVDS > > >>> encoders > > >> > > >> As this is a new binding, please use "renesas,<soc>-lvds". > > > > > > I've recently been thinking that we made the wrong choice, <ip>-<soc> > > > would be better in my opinion as it aligns with <ip>-<version>, but it's > > > too late to change that, so I'll change the order here. > > > > My recollection is that in the beginning we had a bit of a mixture but > > leaned towards <ip>-<soc>, which made sense in my opinion. However, after > > some discussion it was agreed that the best-practice for upstream was to > > use <soc>-<ip>. Unless that situation has changed lets stock with using > > <soc>-<ip> for new bindings. > > Sure, that was my plan, and it seems I failed to explain it clearly. I too > believe that <ip>-<soc> would be better, but as we have standardized on <soc>- > <ip> and as there's no strong reason to reconsider that decision at the > moment, the next version of this patch will use <soc>-<ip>. It was a mistake > in v1, not an attempt to change what we had agreed on.
Thanks, it seems that we are in complete agreement. > > >> BTW, would it make sense to use "renesas,<soc>-du" for the new DU > > >> binding, too? Or have you reserved that for the future version that will > > >> have a one-to-one mapping between device nodes and DU channels? ;-) > > > > > > It's a good idea, let's reserve it for that evolution. If it ever happens > > > ;-) > > -- > Regards, > > Laurent Pinchart >
