linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] dt-bindings: media: Document Synopsys Designware HDMI RX

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAL_JsqKoW=VJ=QmLeztYJSnWEhq+KetsZY9xtoyOa8bf0BA=uw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 10:24:22 -0500
From:   Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
To:     Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
Cc:     "linux-media@...r.kernel.org" <linux-media@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
        Carlos Palminha <CARLOS.PALMINHA@...opsys.com>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hans.verkuil@...co.com>,
        Sylwester Nawrocki <snawrocki@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] dt-bindings: media: Document Synopsys Designware
 HDMI RX

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
>
> On 23-06-2017 22:58, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 06:26:12PM +0100, Jose Abreu wrote:
>>> Document the bindings for the Synopsys Designware HDMI RX.
>>>

[...]

>>> +A sample binding is now provided. The compatible string is for a SoC which has
>>> +has a Synopsys Designware HDMI RX decoder inside.
>>> +
>>> +Example:
>>> +
>>> +dw_hdmi_soc: dw-hdmi-soc@0 {
>>> +    compatible = "snps,dw-hdmi-soc";
>> Not documented.
>
> Yes, its a sample binding which reflects a wrapper driver that
> shall instantiate the controller driver (and this wrapper driver
> is not in this patch series), should I remove this?

Ah, I see. Please don't do this wrapper node like what was done on
DWC3. It should be all one node with the SoC specific part being a new
compatible string (and maybe additional properties). If there's really
some custom logic around the IP block, then maybe it makes sense, but
if it is just different clock connections, phys, resets, etc. those
don't need a separate node.

Rob