Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932251AbdGJPyS (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:54:18 -0400 Received: from smtprelay.synopsys.com ([198.182.60.111]:57739 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932178AbdGJPyP (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:54:15 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] dt-bindings: media: Document Synopsys Designware HDMI RX To: Rob Herring , Jose Abreu References: <8ebe3dfcd61a1c8cfa99102c376ad26b2bfbd254.1497978963.git.joabreu@synopsys.com> <20170623215814.ase6g4lbukaeqak2@rob-hp-laptop> <13f2516b-9e2b-4ad6-ecf1-76fc0d744a32@synopsys.com> CC: "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , Carlos Palminha , Mark Rutland , "Mauro Carvalho Chehab" , Hans Verkuil , Sylwester Nawrocki From: Jose Abreu Message-ID: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:54:09 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.107.19.85] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1396 Lines: 41 Hi Rob, On 10-07-2017 16:24, Rob Herring wrote: > On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Jose Abreu 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