[Patch v3 3/3] ARM: dts: exynos: Rename compatible string property from version to SoC specific

[Aakarsh Jain]

Hi Krzysztof,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Krzysztof Kozlowski [mailto:krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org]
> Sent: 11 November 2022 13:41
> To: Aakarsh Jain <aakarsh.jain at samsung.com>; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; linux-media at vger.kernel.org; linux-
> kernel at vger.kernel.org; devicetree at vger.kernel.org
> Cc: m.szyprowski at samsung.com; andrzej.hajda at intel.com;
> mchehab at kernel.org; hverkuil-cisco at xs4all.nl;
> ezequiel at vanguardiasur.com.ar; jernej.skrabec at gmail.com;
> benjamin.gaignard at collabora.com; krzysztof.kozlowski+dt at linaro.org;
> stanimir.varbanov at linaro.org; dillon.minfei at gmail.com;
> david.plowman at raspberrypi.com; mark.rutland at arm.com;
> robh+dt at kernel.org; krzk+dt at kernel.org; andi at etezian.org;
> alim.akhtar at samsung.com; aswani.reddy at samsung.com;
> pankaj.dubey at samsung.com; smitha.t at samsung.com
> Subject: Re: [Patch v3 3/3] ARM: dts: exynos: Rename compatible string
> property from version to SoC specific
> 
> On 11/11/2022 04:23, Aakarsh Jain wrote:
> > commit "752d3a23d1f68de87e3c" which adds MFC codec device node for
> > exynos3250 SoC. Since exynos3250.dtsi and exynos5420.dtsi are using
> > same compatible string as "samsung,mfc-v7" but their node properties
> > are different.As both SoCs have MFC v7 hardware module but with
> > different clock hierarchy and complexity.
> > So renaming compatible string from version specific to SoC based.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Tommaso Merciai
> <tommaso.merciai at amarulasolutions.com>
> > Suggested-by: Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar at samsung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aakarsh Jain <aakarsh.jain at samsung.com>
> > ---
> >  arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> > index 326b9e0ed8d3..98105c64f7d9 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
> > @@ -485,7 +485,7 @@
> >  		};
> >
> >  		mfc: codec at 13400000 {
> > -			compatible = "samsung,mfc-v7";
> > +			compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-mfc";
> 
> No improvements. Changeset is non-bisectable. I said it in v1, then in v2. So
> now third time... Don't send a new version if you are not going to fix it or
> resolve discussion.
> 
My bad, misunderstood, now I understood your concerns around bisectability.

I hope you mean the below:
------
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/s5p-mfc.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/s5p-mfc.txt
index cb166654fa81..734e53445eb5 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/s5p-mfc.txt
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/s5p-mfc.txt
@@ -10,7 +10,8 @@ Required properties:
   - compatible : value should be either one among the following
        (a) "samsung,mfc-v5" for MFC v5 present in Exynos4 SoCs
        (b) "samsung,mfc-v6" for MFC v6 present in Exynos5 SoCs
-       (c) "samsung,exynos3250-mfc" for MFC v7 present in Exynos3250 SoC
+       (c) "samsung,exynos3250-mfc","samsung,mfc-v7" for MFC v7
+            variant present in Exynos3250 SoC.
        (d) "samsung,mfc-v7" for MFC v7 present in Exynos5420 SoC
        (e) "samsung,mfc-v8" for MFC v8 present in Exynos5800 SoC
        (f) "samsung,exynos5433-mfc" for MFC v8 present in Exynos5433 SoC
diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
index 98105c64f7d9..a2d6ee7fff08 100644
--- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
+++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos3250.dtsi
@@ -485,7 +485,7 @@
                };

                mfc: codec at 13400000 {
-                       compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-mfc";
+                       compatible = "samsung,exynos3250-mfc", "samsung,mfc-v7";
                        reg = <0x13400000 0x10000>;
                        interrupts = <GIC_SPI 102 IRQ_TYPE_LEVEL_HIGH>;
                        clock-names = "mfc", "sclk_mfc";
-----

Where mfc-v7 will be used as fallback for the older kernel which might use new dtb.

Let me know if this is not what you meant or am I still missing something?


> In cover letter you said "Addressed review comments from Krzysztof
> Kozlowski", so please explain me, how did you resolve my comments about
> fallback for this patch and for bindings patch?
> 
My bad, I just explained the misunderstanding above.

> Best regards,
> Krzysztof