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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:54:09 +0100
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@...opsys.com>
To:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 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

Hi Rob,


On 10-07-2017 16:24, Rob Herring wrote:
> 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.

Ok. I guess I can just drop the SoC specific bindings as this was
more of a sample as how the EDID handle can be specified. I just
sent v8 now with the new bindings :) Thanks!

Best regards,
Jose Miguel Abreu

>
> Rob