linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: media: Document STM32MP25 VENC video encoder

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]

Date:   Mon, 9 Oct 2023 16:28:41 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>
To:     Hugues FRUCHET <hugues.fruchet@...s.st.com>,
        Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel@...guardiasur.com.ar>,
        Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@...gutronix.de>,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
        Hans Verkuil <hverkuil@...all.nl>, linux-media@...r.kernel.org,
        Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@...il.com>,
        Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@...s.st.com>,
        linux-stm32@...md-mailman.stormreply.com,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:     Andrzej Pietrasiewicz <andrzej.p@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] dt-bindings: media: Document STM32MP25 VENC video
 encoder

On 09/10/2023 16:24, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> On 10/9/23 15:56, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On 09/10/2023 15:49, Hugues FRUCHET wrote:
>>> Hi Krzysztof,
>>>
>>> On 10/5/23 21:45, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>>> On 04/10/2023 11:15, Hugues Fruchet wrote:
>>>>> Add STM32MP25 VENC video encoder bindings.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why this binding is separate from video decoder.
>>>> Merge them.
>>> VDEC and VENC are two independent IPs with their own clock, reset,
>>> interrupt & register set, they have their own access to APB/AXI bus.
>>> Moreover future chipsets may embed only VENC or VDEC.
>>>
>>> Hoping that this clarifies the reason of two different bindings.
>>
>> No, it does not. These are no reasons to have independent bindings,
>> except when having actual impact on the bindings. The bindings look
>> identical. What are the differences?
> I'm sorry but I really don't understand your point, these are two 
> different IPs with very different registers in it, so why should
> I share that in a single binding ?

Because the binding is identical. If not, maybe I missed something, so
please point me to differences in the binding.

Best regards,
Krzysztof