Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On 03/23/2014 09:03 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: On 03/23/2014 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x" + - compatible: may be "nxp,tda9989", "nxp,tda19988" or "nxp,tda19989" There is a "DT is ABI" policy and although there is no mainline Linux user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate "nxp,tda998x" and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? Currently, there is no effective way to deprecate a binding or compatible. You just add the one(s) that are more sensible and you mark the old one as DEPRECATED by simply writing it in the binding doc. The driver should support the old binding at least for a while. It doesn't need to - it's only been in development trees so far, and never been in a mainline full release. Until it does, the binding does not become stable. Ok, I see. Thanks for the clarification. A note about it would have been nice though. Anyway, sorry for the noise. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > On 03/23/2014 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: >> On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 >> Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x" + - compatible: may be "nxp,tda9989", "nxp,tda19988" or "nxp,tda19989" >>> >>> There is a "DT is ABI" policy and although there is no mainline Linux >>> user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate >>> "nxp,tda998x" and introduce new compatibles. >> >> Pratically, what is this way? > > Currently, there is no effective way to deprecate a binding or > compatible. You just add the one(s) that are more sensible and > you mark the old one as DEPRECATED by simply writing it in the > binding doc. > > The driver should support the old binding at least for a while. It doesn't need to - it's only been in development trees so far, and never been in a mainline full release. Until it does, the binding does not become stable. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On 03/23/2014 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x" + - compatible: may be "nxp,tda9989", "nxp,tda19988" or "nxp,tda19989" There is a "DT is ABI" policy and although there is no mainline Linux user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate "nxp,tda998x" and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? Currently, there is no effective way to deprecate a binding or compatible. You just add the one(s) that are more sensible and you mark the old one as DEPRECATED by simply writing it in the binding doc. The driver should support the old binding at least for a while. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > Required properties; > > - - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x" > > + - compatible: may be "nxp,tda9989", "nxp,tda19988" or "nxp,tda19989" > > There is a "DT is ABI" policy and although there is no mainline Linux > user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate > "nxp,tda998x" and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be nxp,tda998x + - compatible: may be nxp,tda9989, nxp,tda19988 or nxp,tda19989 There is a DT is ABI policy and although there is no mainline Linux user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate nxp,tda998x and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? -- Ken ar c'hentañ | ** Breizh ha Linux atav! ** Jef | http://moinejf.free.fr/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On 03/23/2014 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be nxp,tda998x + - compatible: may be nxp,tda9989, nxp,tda19988 or nxp,tda19989 There is a DT is ABI policy and although there is no mainline Linux user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate nxp,tda998x and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? Currently, there is no effective way to deprecate a binding or compatible. You just add the one(s) that are more sensible and you mark the old one as DEPRECATED by simply writing it in the binding doc. The driver should support the old binding at least for a while. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: On 03/23/2014 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be nxp,tda998x + - compatible: may be nxp,tda9989, nxp,tda19988 or nxp,tda19989 There is a DT is ABI policy and although there is no mainline Linux user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate nxp,tda998x and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? Currently, there is no effective way to deprecate a binding or compatible. You just add the one(s) that are more sensible and you mark the old one as DEPRECATED by simply writing it in the binding doc. The driver should support the old binding at least for a while. It doesn't need to - it's only been in development trees so far, and never been in a mainline full release. Until it does, the binding does not become stable. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: now at 9.7Mbps down 460kbps up... slowly improving, and getting towards what was expected from it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On 03/23/2014 09:03 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 07:12:05PM +0100, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: On 03/23/2014 11:19 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: On Fri, 21 Mar 2014 14:37:52 +0100 Sebastian Hesselbarth sebastian.hesselba...@gmail.com wrote: Required properties; - - compatible: must be nxp,tda998x + - compatible: may be nxp,tda9989, nxp,tda19988 or nxp,tda19989 There is a DT is ABI policy and although there is no mainline Linux user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate nxp,tda998x and introduce new compatibles. Pratically, what is this way? Currently, there is no effective way to deprecate a binding or compatible. You just add the one(s) that are more sensible and you mark the old one as DEPRECATED by simply writing it in the binding doc. The driver should support the old binding at least for a while. It doesn't need to - it's only been in development trees so far, and never been in a mainline full release. Until it does, the binding does not become stable. Ok, I see. Thanks for the clarification. A note about it would have been nice though. Anyway, sorry for the noise. Sebastian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On 03/21/2014 11:55 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
The tda998x driver accepts only 3 chips from the TDA998x family.
This patch changes the driver compatible strings to these chips.
Jean-Francois,
be careful with building a DT binding from a Linux driver. Although
we constantly struggle to define a binding independent of Linux, it
should not reflect what Linux is capable of but describe the HW in
general.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine
---
v2: change the subject to drm/i2c
This patch applies after
drm/i2c: tda998x: Fix lack of required reg in DT documentation
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
index fc7effa..e3f3d65 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Device-Tree bindings for the NXP TDA998x HDMI transmitter
Required properties;
- - compatible: must be "nxp,tda998x"
+ - compatible: may be "nxp,tda9989", "nxp,tda19988" or "nxp,tda19989"
There is a "DT is ABI" policy and although there is no mainline Linux
user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate
"nxp,tda998x" and introduce new compatibles.
Also, as long as we don't know about any major differences between
9989, 1998[89] it is fine to just have one of them defined. As soon
as we discover any difference that cannot be solved in another way,
we can add a new compatible.
What we _know_ is that 998[134] are different from 9989,1998[89]
with respect to additional CEC feature. But we also _know_ that the
exact version/revision of 9989,1998[89] can be probed from i2c
registers.
DT maintainers will know better, but as long as we have no prove that
998[134] can also be properly distinguished by i2c registers, just add
"nxp,tda9989" (which was probably the first revision released) and
assume 1998[89] are "compatible enough". Or add all three and make
"nxp,tda9989" the mandatory compatible.
You can leave out 998[134] for now.
- reg: I2C address
The line above and below reg property look like there is a tab. If
so, can you please get rid of the blank line above and fix the line
below?
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Optional properties:
Example:
tda998x: hdmi-encoder {
- compatible = "nxp,tda998x";
+ compatible = "nxp,tda19988";
Depending on above decision this becomes either
compatible = "nxp,tda9989";
or
compatible = "nxp,tda19988", "nxp,tda9989";
reg = <0x70>;
interrupt-parent = <>;
interrupts = <27 2>; /* falling edge */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
index 48af5ca..fd6751c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
@@ -1367,7 +1367,9 @@ fail:
#ifdef CONFIG_OF
static const struct of_device_id tda998x_dt_ids[] = {
- { .compatible = "nxp,tda998x", },
+ { .compatible = "nxp,tda9989", },
+ { .compatible = "nxp,tda19988", },
+ { .compatible = "nxp,tda19989", },
Independent of the decision above, just "nxp,tda9989" is
sufficient.
Sebastian
{ }
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tda998x_dt_ids);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH v2] drm/i2c: tda998x: Change the compatible strings
On 03/21/2014 11:55 AM, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:
The tda998x driver accepts only 3 chips from the TDA998x family.
This patch changes the driver compatible strings to these chips.
Jean-Francois,
be careful with building a DT binding from a Linux driver. Although
we constantly struggle to define a binding independent of Linux, it
should not reflect what Linux is capable of but describe the HW in
general.
Signed-off-by: Jean-Francois Moine moin...@free.fr
---
v2: change the subject to drm/i2c
This patch applies after
drm/i2c: tda998x: Fix lack of required reg in DT documentation
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt | 4 ++--
drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c | 4 +++-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
index fc7effa..e3f3d65 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/drm/i2c/tda998x.txt
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Device-Tree bindings for the NXP TDA998x HDMI transmitter
Required properties;
- - compatible: must be nxp,tda998x
+ - compatible: may be nxp,tda9989, nxp,tda19988 or nxp,tda19989
There is a DT is ABI policy and although there is no mainline Linux
user of current compatible, the correct way would be to deprecate
nxp,tda998x and introduce new compatibles.
Also, as long as we don't know about any major differences between
9989, 1998[89] it is fine to just have one of them defined. As soon
as we discover any difference that cannot be solved in another way,
we can add a new compatible.
What we _know_ is that 998[134] are different from 9989,1998[89]
with respect to additional CEC feature. But we also _know_ that the
exact version/revision of 9989,1998[89] can be probed from i2c
registers.
DT maintainers will know better, but as long as we have no prove that
998[134] can also be properly distinguished by i2c registers, just add
nxp,tda9989 (which was probably the first revision released) and
assume 1998[89] are compatible enough. Or add all three and make
nxp,tda9989 the mandatory compatible.
You can leave out 998[134] for now.
- reg: I2C address
The line above and below reg property look like there is a tab. If
so, can you please get rid of the blank line above and fix the line
below?
@@ -20,7 +20,7 @@ Optional properties:
Example:
tda998x: hdmi-encoder {
- compatible = nxp,tda998x;
+ compatible = nxp,tda19988;
Depending on above decision this becomes either
compatible = nxp,tda9989;
or
compatible = nxp,tda19988, nxp,tda9989;
reg = 0x70;
interrupt-parent = gpio0;
interrupts = 27 2; /* falling edge */
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
index 48af5ca..fd6751c 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i2c/tda998x_drv.c
@@ -1367,7 +1367,9 @@ fail:
#ifdef CONFIG_OF
static const struct of_device_id tda998x_dt_ids[] = {
- { .compatible = nxp,tda998x, },
+ { .compatible = nxp,tda9989, },
+ { .compatible = nxp,tda19988, },
+ { .compatible = nxp,tda19989, },
Independent of the decision above, just nxp,tda9989 is
sufficient.
Sebastian
{ }
};
MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, tda998x_dt_ids);
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
