[PATCH 2/4] dt-bindings: media: Add bindings for raspberrypi,rp1-cfe

Krzysztof Kozlowski krzysztof.kozlowski at linaro.org
Wed Mar 20 02:12:05 PDT 2024


On 20/03/2024 09:50, Naushir Patuck wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Also, I'm still wondering about the RP1 part there in the compatible
>>>> string. Is it necessary? The CFE is located in the RP1 co-processor, but
>>>> is that relevant?
>>>>
>>>> Is there a versioning for the whole RP1 chip? Maybe it's going to the
>>>> wrong direction if we use the board/SoC for this compatible name, as
>>>> it's actually the RP1 where the CFE is located in, not the SoC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't really know the conversion required to answer this one.
>>> Logically CFE is on RP1, so it makes sense to me to have "rp1" in the
>>> string, but I will follow the judgment of the maintainers.
>>
>> Well, my thinking here was that if we have a register from which to read
>> the version, and Raspberry Pi would create a new co-processor, RP2, with
>> the same CFE. Would we then have "raspberrypi,rp1-cfe" and
>> "raspberrypi,rp2-cfe", even if there are no changes? 

That would follow guidelines as expressed in writing bindings.

>>Or would a plain
>> "raspberrypi,cfe" do for both?
>>
>> In other words, if we don't need the "rp1" for versioning purposes,
>> should it then be dropped?
> 
> I agree with the above, you've convinced me that "raspberrypi,cfe"
> might be the more appropriate string, or a convincing argument for
> that to be a fallback string.

Just follow the guidelines. If you come up with generic compatible
alone, you could run to the same problems everyone is running.

Best regards,
Krzysztof




More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list