linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: media: add Maxim MAX96714 GMSL2 Deserializer

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: <7d0197b9-9008-4260-86e9-4b7f7017b3b6@collabora.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 16:48:16 +0100
From: Julien Massot <julien.massot@...labora.com>
To: Conor Dooley <conor@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-media@...r.kernel.org, kernel@...labora.com,
 devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 mchehab@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
 conor+dt@...nel.org, sakari.ailus@....fi
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/4] dt-bindings: media: add Maxim MAX96714 GMSL2
 Deserializer



On 3/8/24 16:07, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 03:08:12PM +0100, Julien Massot wrote:
>> On 3/7/24 20:21, Conor Dooley wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 04:26:06PM +0100, Julien Massot wrote:
>>>> Add DT bindings for Maxim MAX96714 GMSL2 Deserializer.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Massot <julien.massot@...labora.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Change since v3:
>>>>    - Renamed file to maxim,max96714.yaml dropped the 'f' suffix
>>>
>>> Why? The filename should match the compatible, which /does/ have an f.
>> All the work has been done on MAX96714F variant of this Maxim GMSL2
>> deserializer.
>> The driver and the binding remain suitable for all variants of this chipset,
>> since they share the same
>> register mapping, similar features etc..
>>
>> MAX96714 exists in different variant: MAX96714 / MAX96714F / MAX96714K that
>> will be easy
>> to add support for this binding and driver later.
> 
> Either document the non-f version if it really is that similar, using
> all of the same properties, or name the file after the version you've
> actually documented. I don't see why this particular case should be
> given an exception to how bindings are named.
> 
> What is the actual difference between the f and non f versions? Is it
> visible to software?

Yes there are a few differences visible to the software, for example the 
GMSL
link rate since MAX96714 support 6 and 3 Gbps, while MAX96714F only 
supports 3Gbps.
the registers map is the same, but a few values are not possible with 
the 'f' version.

I will add a compatible for the non 'f' version, and will do the same 
for the max96717 binding.

-- 
Julien Massot
Senior Software Engineer
Collabora Ltd.
Platinum Building, St John's Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS, UK
Registered in England & Wales, no. 5513718