This patch adds device tree based discovery support to G2D driver
Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org --- drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c index 7e41529..210e142 100644 --- a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c +++ b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ #include <linux/slab.h> #include <linux/clk.h> #include <linux/interrupt.h> +#include <linux/of.h>
#include <linux/platform_device.h> #include <media/v4l2-mem2mem.h> @@ -796,7 +797,8 @@ static int g2d_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) }
def_frame.stride = (def_frame.width * def_frame.fmt->depth) >> 3; - dev->variant = g2d_get_drv_data(pdev); + if (!pdev->dev.of_node) + dev->variant = g2d_get_drv_data(pdev);
return 0;
@@ -844,6 +846,18 @@ static struct g2d_variant g2d_drvdata_v4x = { .hw_rev = TYPE_G2D_4X, /* Revision 4.1 for Exynos4X12 and Exynos5 */ };
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = { + { + .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v3", + .data = &g2d_drvdata_v3x, + }, { + .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41", + .data = &g2d_drvdata_v4x, + }, + {}, +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_g2d_match); + static struct platform_device_id g2d_driver_ids[] = { { .name = "s5p-g2d", @@ -863,6 +877,7 @@ static struct platform_driver g2d_pdrv = { .driver = { .name = G2D_NAME, .owner = THIS_MODULE, + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(exynos_g2d_match), }, };
From: Ajay Kumar ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com
This patch adds device tree match table for Exynos G2D controller.
Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org --- drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c index ddcfb5d..d24b170 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include <linux/workqueue.h> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h> #include <linux/dma-attrs.h> +#include <linux/of.h>
#include <drm/drmP.h> #include <drm/exynos_drm.h> @@ -1240,6 +1241,14 @@ static int g2d_resume(struct device *dev)
static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(g2d_pm_ops, g2d_suspend, g2d_resume);
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF +static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = { + { .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" }, + {}, +}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_g2d_match); +#endif + struct platform_driver g2d_driver = { .probe = g2d_probe, .remove = g2d_remove, @@ -1247,5 +1256,6 @@ struct platform_driver g2d_driver = { .name = "s5p-g2d", .owner = THIS_MODULE, .pm = &g2d_pm_ops, + .of_match_table = of_match_ptr(exynos_g2d_match), }, };
2013/1/25 Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org:
From: Ajay Kumar ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com
This patch adds device tree match table for Exynos G2D controller.
Signed-off-by: Ajay Kumar ajaykumar.rs@samsung.com Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org
drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c index ddcfb5d..d24b170 100644 --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/exynos/exynos_drm_g2d.c @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ #include <linux/workqueue.h> #include <linux/dma-mapping.h> #include <linux/dma-attrs.h> +#include <linux/of.h>
#include <drm/drmP.h> #include <drm/exynos_drm.h> @@ -1240,6 +1241,14 @@ static int g2d_resume(struct device *dev)
static SIMPLE_DEV_PM_OPS(g2d_pm_ops, g2d_suspend, g2d_resume);
+#ifdef CONFIG_OF +static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },
not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
{},+}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_g2d_match); +#endif
struct platform_driver g2d_driver = { .probe = g2d_probe, .remove = g2d_remove, @@ -1247,5 +1256,6 @@ struct platform_driver g2d_driver = { .name = "s5p-g2d", .owner = THIS_MODULE, .pm = &g2d_pm_ops,
.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(exynos_g2d_match), },};
1.7.4.1
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 01/30/2013 09:50 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
Err no. Are you suggesting using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" compatible string for Exynos4 specific IPs ? This would not be correct, and you still can match the driver with multiple different revisions of the IP and associate any required driver's private data with each corresponding compatible property.
Perhaps it would make more sense to include the SoCs name in the compatible string, e.g. "samsung,exynos-g2d-v41", but appending revision of the IP seems acceptable to me. The revisions appear to be well documented and it's more or less clear which one corresponds to which SoC.
--
Thanks, Sylwester
-----Original Message----- From: Sylwester Nawrocki [mailto:sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:51 AM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sachin Kamat; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 01/30/2013 09:50 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
Err no. Are you suggesting using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" compatible string for Exynos4 specific IPs ? This would not be correct, and you still can
I assumed the version 'v41' is the ip for Exynos5 SoC. So if this version means Exynos4 SoC then it should be "samsung,exynos4-g2d".
match the driver with multiple different revisions of the IP and associate any required driver's private data with each corresponding compatible property.
Right, and for why I prefer to use version property instead of embedded version string, you can refer to the my comment I replied already to the "drm/exynos: Get HDMI version from device tree" email thread.
Perhaps it would make more sense to include the SoCs name in the compatible string, e.g. "samsung,exynos-g2d-v41", but appending revision of the IP seems acceptable to me. The revisions appear to be well documented and it's more or less clear which one corresponds to which SoC.
--
Thanks, Sylwester
Hi Inki,
On 01/31/2013 02:30 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Sylwester Nawrocki [mailto:sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:51 AM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sachin Kamat; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 01/30/2013 09:50 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
Err no. Are you suggesting using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" compatible string for Exynos4 specific IPs ? This would not be correct, and you still can
I assumed the version 'v41' is the ip for Exynos5 SoC. So if this version means Exynos4 SoC then it should be "samsung,exynos4-g2d".
Yes, v3.0 is implemented in the S5PC110 (Exynos3110) SoCs and Exynos4210, V4.1 can be found in Exynos4212 and Exynos4412, if I'm not mistaken.
So we could have:
compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
or alternatively
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
I don't see a need to use an additional redundant property to identify the device. These IPs across Exynos SoC do differ and specifying a general property like "samsung,exynos4-g2d" for them would simply be a violation of existing conventions.
--
Thanks, Sylwester
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Hi Inki,
Hi Sylwester and Inki,
On 01/31/2013 02:30 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Sylwester Nawrocki [mailto:sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:51 AM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sachin Kamat; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 01/30/2013 09:50 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
Err no. Are you suggesting using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" compatible
string
for Exynos4 specific IPs ? This would not be correct, and you still can
I assumed the version 'v41' is the ip for Exynos5 SoC. So if this
version
means Exynos4 SoC then it should be "samsung,exynos4-g2d".
Yes, v3.0 is implemented in the S5PC110 (Exynos3110) SoCs and Exynos4210, V4.1 can be found in Exynos4212 and Exynos4412, if I'm not mistaken.
So we could have:
compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
In my opinion, this is better than later. Because as I said, when we can use IP version to identify, it is more clear and can be used
One more, how about following?
compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" compatible = "samsung,g2d-4.1"
I think, just g2d is enough. For example, we are using it for mfc like following: compatible = "samsung.mfc-v6"
or alternatively
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
Thanks.
- Kukjin
Hi Kukjin,
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kukjin Kim Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:15 AM To: 'Sylwester Nawrocki'; 'Inki Dae' Cc: 'Sachin Kamat'; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Hi Inki,
Hi Sylwester and Inki,
On 01/31/2013 02:30 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Sylwester Nawrocki [mailto:sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:51 AM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sachin Kamat; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 01/30/2013 09:50 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{ .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
Err no. Are you suggesting using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" compatible
string
for Exynos4 specific IPs ? This would not be correct, and you still
can
I assumed the version 'v41' is the ip for Exynos5 SoC. So if this
version
means Exynos4 SoC then it should be "samsung,exynos4-g2d".
Yes, v3.0 is implemented in the S5PC110 (Exynos3110) SoCs and
Exynos4210,
V4.1 can be found in Exynos4212 and Exynos4412, if I'm not mistaken.
So we could have:
compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
In my opinion, this is better than later. Because as I said, when we can use IP version to identify, it is more clear and can be used
One more, how about following?
compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" compatible = "samsung,g2d-4.1"
I think compatible string should be considered case by case.
For example, If compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" is added to exynos4210.dtsi, it'd be reasonable. But what if that compatible string is added to exynos4.dtsi?. This case isn't considered for exynos4412 SoC with v4.1.
So at least shouldn't that compatible string include SoC version so that that can be added to proper dtsi file? And I'm not sure how the ip version should be dealt with as of now:( Really enough to know the ip version implicitly(ie. exynos4412 string means implicitly that its g2d ip version is v4.1 so its device driver refers to the necessary data through of_device_id's data)?
I think, just g2d is enough. For example, we are using it for mfc like following: compatible = "samsung.mfc-v6"
or alternatively
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
So, IMO, I think this is better than first one.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Thanks.
- Kukjin
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/31/2013 06:27 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
Hi Kukjin,
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Kukjin Kim Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:15 AM To: 'Sylwester Nawrocki'; 'Inki Dae' Cc: 'Sachin Kamat'; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
Hi Inki,
Hi Sylwester and Inki,
On 01/31/2013 02:30 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Sylwester Nawrocki [mailto:sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 5:51 AM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sachin Kamat; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri- devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org; s.nawrocki@samsung.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 01/30/2013 09:50 AM, Inki Dae wrote:
> +static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = { > + { .compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41" },
not only Exynos5 and also Exyno4 has the g2d gpu and drm-based g2d driver shoud support for all Exynos SoCs. How about using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" instead and adding a new property 'version' to identify ip version more surely? With this, we could know which SoC and its g2d ip version. The version property could have '0x14' or others. And please add descriptions to dt document.
Err no. Are you suggesting using "samsung,exynos5-g2d" compatible
string
for Exynos4 specific IPs ? This would not be correct, and you still
can
I assumed the version 'v41' is the ip for Exynos5 SoC. So if this
version
means Exynos4 SoC then it should be "samsung,exynos4-g2d".
Yes, v3.0 is implemented in the S5PC110 (Exynos3110) SoCs and
Exynos4210,
V4.1 can be found in Exynos4212 and Exynos4412, if I'm not mistaken.
So we could have:
compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
In my opinion, this is better than later. Because as I said, when we can use IP version to identify, it is more clear and can be used
One more, how about following?
compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" compatible = "samsung,g2d-4.1"
I think compatible string should be considered case by case.
For example, If compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" is added to exynos4210.dtsi, it'd be reasonable. But what if that compatible string is added to exynos4.dtsi?. This case isn't considered for exynos4412 SoC with v4.1.
You can always add the most common value for the compatible property into exynos4.dtsi, and then override it in exyons4210.dtsi, or other files.
Still, the idea of including the SoC version in the compatible value is a good idea.
On 1 February 2013 06:57, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
For example, If compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" is added to exynos4210.dtsi, it'd be reasonable. But what if that compatible string is added to exynos4.dtsi?. This case isn't considered for exynos4412 SoC with v4.1.
In case of Exynos4 series the base address of G2D ip is different across series. Hence we cannot define it in exynos4.dtsi and need to define the nodes in exynos4xxx.dtsi or specific board files. Thus we can use the version appended compatible string.
However even the second option suggested by Sylwester is OK with me or to be even more specific we could go for both SoC as well as version option something like this.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
In any case please let me know the final preferred one so that I can update the code send the revised patches.
On 02/01/2013 09:33 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
On 1 February 2013 06:57, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
For example, If compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" is added to exynos4210.dtsi, it'd be reasonable. But what if that compatible string is added to exynos4.dtsi?. This case isn't considered for exynos4412 SoC with v4.1.
In case of Exynos4 series the base address of G2D ip is different across series. Hence we cannot define it in exynos4.dtsi and need to define the nodes in exynos4xxx.dtsi or specific board files. Thus we can use the version appended compatible string.
However even the second option suggested by Sylwester is OK with me or to be even more specific we could go for both SoC as well as version option something like this.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110, Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
In any case please let me know the final preferred one so that I can update the code send the revised patches.
The version with SoC name embedded in it seems most reliable and correct to me.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos3110 (S5PC110, S5PV210), Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
FIMG stands for Fully Interactive Mobile Graphics, and other multimedia IPs follow this naming convention, e.g. FIMG-3D, FIMD (Display Controller), FIMC (Camera), etc.
This is just my opinion though, and it seems this is a most common scheme from greping the device tree bindings documentation.
As Stephen pointed out, and I also did in some other mail thread in the past, not only an IP revision might be required, but also its integration details, specific to an SoC type are important. This actually happens to be the case with FIMC, where same version of one instance of the IP has more data interfaces routed to other SoC subsystems on one SoC type than on other one.
I think it won't be possible to use a scheme like "samsung-exynos-g2d-3.0" for all IPs. And I would much more like to see a uniform naming convention used, rather than living with a chaotic set of compatible properties, that has a potential to become even more chaotic in the future.
--
Thanks, Sylwester
In any case please let me know the final preferred one so that I can update the code send the revised patches.
The version with SoC name embedded in it seems most reliable and correct to me.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos3110 (S5PC110, S5PV210), Exynos4210 */ compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
Looks good to me.
Inki, Kukjin, please let us know your opinion so that we can freeze this. Also please suggest the SoC name for Exynos5 (5250?).
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:13 PM To: Sylwester Nawrocki Cc: Inki Dae; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux-media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
In any case please let me know the final preferred one so that I can update the code send the revised patches.
The version with SoC name embedded in it seems most reliable and correct to me.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos3110 (S5PC110,
S5PV210),
Exynos4210 */compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412
*/
Looks good to me.
Inki, Kukjin, please let us know your opinion so that we can freeze this. Also please suggest the SoC name for Exynos5 (5250?).
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is for exynos4212 and exynos4412.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is for exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard characters. Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
2013. 2. 1. 오후 8:52 Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com 작성:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Oops, one more thing. AFAIK Exynos4210 also has fimg-2d ip. In this case, we should use "samsung,exynos4210-fimg-2d" as comparible string and add it to exynos4210.dtsi? And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
Sorry but give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 1 February 2013 18:28, Inki Dae daeinki@gmail.com wrote:
- 오후 8:52 Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com 작성:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Oops, one more thing. AFAIK Exynos4210 also has fimg-2d ip. In this case, we should use "samsung,exynos4210-fimg-2d" as comparible string and add it to exynos4210.dtsi?
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Sorry but give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
2013/2/4 Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org:
On 1 February 2013 18:28, Inki Dae daeinki@gmail.com wrote:
- 오후 8:52 Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com 작성:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Oops, one more thing. AFAIK Exynos4210 also has fimg-2d ip. In this case, we should use "samsung,exynos4210-fimg-2d" as comparible string and add it to exynos4210.dtsi?
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Ok, let's use the below,
For exynos4210 SoC, compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"
For exynos4x12 SoCs, compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"
For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC has same ip) compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
To other guys, The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Sorry but give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- With warm regards, Sachin
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
2013/2/4 Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org:
On 1 February 2013 18:28, Inki Dae daeinki@gmail.com wrote:
- 오후 8:52 Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com 작성:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Oops, one more thing. AFAIK Exynos4210 also has fimg-2d ip. In this case, we should use "samsung,exynos4210-fimg-2d" as comparible string and add it to exynos4210.dtsi?
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Ok, let's use the below,
For exynos4210 SoC, compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"
For exynos4x12 SoCs, compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"
Even though 4212 is exist, I can't see 4212 board support at mainline. so I prefer exynos4412-g2d instead of 4212-g2d.
For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC has same ip) compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
Acked-by: Kyungmin Park kyungmin.park@samsung.com
To other guys, The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Sorry but give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- With warm regards, Sachin
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
Hi Inki,
On 2013년 02월 05일 12:03, Inki Dae wrote:
2013/2/4 Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org:
On 1 February 2013 18:28, Inki Dae daeinki@gmail.com wrote:
- 오후 8:52 Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com 작성:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Oops, one more thing. AFAIK Exynos4210 also has fimg-2d ip. In this case, we should use "samsung,exynos4210-fimg-2d" as comparible string and add it to exynos4210.dtsi?
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Ok, let's use the below,
For exynos4210 SoC, compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"
For exynos4x12 SoCs, compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"
For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC has same ip) compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
To other guys, The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.
This seems good to me.
Best Regards, - Seung-Woo Kim
Thanks, Inki Dae
Sorry but give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- With warm regards, Sachin
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 02/05/2013 12:03 PM, Inki Dae wrote:
2013/2/4 Sachin Kamat sachin.kamat@linaro.org:
On 1 February 2013 18:28, Inki Dae daeinki@gmail.com wrote:
- 오후 8:52 Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com 작성:
-----Original Message----- From: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-media- owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Sachin Kamat Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:40 PM To: Inki Dae Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki; Kukjin Kim; Sylwester Nawrocki; linux- media@vger.kernel.org; dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; devicetree- discuss@lists.ozlabs.org; patches@linaro.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/exynos: Add device tree based discovery support for G2D
On 1 February 2013 17:02, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
How about using like below? Compatible = ""samsung,exynos4x12-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */ It looks odd to use "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" saying that this ip is
for
exynos4212 and exynos4412.
AFAIK, compatible strings are not supposed to have any wildcard
characters.
Compatible string should suggest the first SoC that contained this IP. Hence IMO 4212 is OK.
Oops, one more thing. AFAIK Exynos4210 also has fimg-2d ip. In this case, we should use "samsung,exynos4210-fimg-2d" as comparible string and add it to exynos4210.dtsi?
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Ok, let's use the below,
For exynos4210 SoC, compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"
For exynos4x12 SoCs, compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"
For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC has same ip) compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
To other guys, The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.
I like this compatible, also we can use rule like this to HDMI of drm/exynos.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Sorry but give me your opinions.
Thanks, Inki Dae
Got it. Please post it again.
-- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
-- With warm regards, Sachin
dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
On 02/05/2013 04:03 AM, Inki Dae wrote: [...]
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Ok, let's use the below,
For exynos4210 SoC, compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"
Since S5PV210 (Exynos3110 ??) seems to have same G2D IP, I guess something like "samsung,s5pv210-g2d" could be used for both S5PV210 (S5PC110) and Exynos4210 (S5PC210, S5PV310) ? I'm fine with using "samsung,exynos4210-g2d" for Exynos4210 though.
For instance for tegra SoCs a conventions like "nvidia,tegra<chip>-<ip>", is used (e.g. "nvidia,tegra20-gr2d").
For exynos4x12 SoCs, compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"
I'm not sure how well exynos4212 is going to be supported in the kernel. As Mr Park pointed out, if it is going to be nearly not existent then we could perhaps go with "samsung,exynos4412-g2d" for Exynos4412 and "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for Exynos4212 (as needed). Anyway, I fine with using "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for both. I'd like to hear Mr Kim's opinion on this as well though.
For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC has same ip) compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
To other guys, The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.
It looks good to me, please just see the two remarks above.
-- Regards, Sylwester
On 5 February 2013 15:03, Sylwester Nawrocki s.nawrocki@samsung.com wrote:
On 02/05/2013 04:03 AM, Inki Dae wrote: [...]
Exynos4210 has same g2d IP (v3.0) as C110 or V210; so the same comptible string will be used for this one too.
And please check if exynos4212 and 4412 SoCs have same fimg-2d ip. If it's different, we might need to add ip version property or compatible string to each dtsi file to identify the ip version.
AFAIK, they both have the same IP (v4.1).
Ok, let's use the below,
For exynos4210 SoC, compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-g2d"
Since S5PV210 (Exynos3110 ??) seems to have same G2D IP, I guess something like "samsung,s5pv210-g2d" could be used for both S5PV210 (S5PC110) and Exynos4210 (S5PC210, S5PV310) ? I'm fine with using "samsung,exynos4210-g2d" for Exynos4210 though.
Since S5PV210 is the first SoC with the g2d IP as used on exynos4210, I am inclined to use "samsung,s5pv210-g2d" for exynos4210. This was suggested by Kukjin Kim as well.
For instance for tegra SoCs a conventions like "nvidia,tegra<chip>-<ip>", is used (e.g. "nvidia,tegra20-gr2d").
For exynos4x12 SoCs, compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d"
I'm not sure how well exynos4212 is going to be supported in the kernel. As Mr Park pointed out, if it is going to be nearly not existent then we could perhaps go with "samsung,exynos4412-g2d" for Exynos4412 and "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for Exynos4212 (as needed). Anyway, I fine with using "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for both. I'd like to hear Mr Kim's opinion on this as well though.
I will use "samsung,exynos4212-g2d" for now as it has dtsi reference, although there is no exclusive board support based on this SoC.
For exynos5250, 5410 (In case of Exynos5440, I'm not sure that the SoC has same ip) compatible = "samsung,exynos5250-g2d"
To other guys, The device tree is used by not only v4l2 side but also drm side so we should reach an arrangement. So please give me ack if you agree to my opinion. Otherwise please, give me your opinions.
It looks good to me, please just see the two remarks above.
Ok, i will use the above string for 5250.
I will resend the patches with above changes and other comments addressed.
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 02/01/2013 09:33 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
On 1 February 2013 06:57, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
For example, If compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" is added to exynos4210.dtsi, it'd be reasonable. But what if that compatible string is added to exynos4.dtsi?. This case isn't considered for exynos4412 SoC with v4.1.
In case of Exynos4 series the base address of G2D ip is different across series. Hence we cannot define it in exynos4.dtsi and need to define the nodes in exynos4xxx.dtsi or specific board files. Thus we can use the version appended compatible string.
However even the second option suggested by Sylwester is OK with me or to be even more specific we could go for both SoC as well as version option something like this.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110,
Exynos4210 */
compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212,
Exynos4412 */
In any case please let me know the final preferred one so that I can update the code send the revised patches.
The version with SoC name embedded in it seems most reliable and correct to me.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos3110 (S5PC110, S5PV210), Exynos4210 */
If this convention will be used, I hope, the known name, S5PV210 can be used. Why don't you use same SoC name with using in arch/arm/?
compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212, Exynos4412 */
FIMG stands for Fully Interactive Mobile Graphics, and other multimedia IPs follow this naming convention, e.g. FIMG-3D, FIMD (Display Controller), FIMC (Camera), etc.
How about MFC?
This is just my opinion though, and it seems this is a most common scheme from greping the device tree bindings documentation.
IMO, you can grep '$ git grep compatible.*samsung'...or IP name.
As Stephen pointed out, and I also did in some other mail thread in the past, not only an IP revision might be required, but also its integration details, specific to an SoC type are important. This actually happens to be the case with FIMC, where same version of one instance of the IP has more data interfaces routed to other SoC subsystems on one SoC type than on other one.
Well, I don't think so. As you know Samsung makes many EXYNOS SoCs and nowadays the EXYNOS SoCs include many Samsung own IPs such as multimedia. And the IPs are reused on across Samsung SoCs, and I hope on other SoC vendor's SoC. It means Samsung is no longer just SoC vendor and can be called IP vendor. So let's see other IP vendors, ARM, Synopsys and so on. How are their IPs implemented in kernel? Why should Samsung use the SoC name for their IP? And why should we use old SoC name in futre? For example, see the s3c2410-xxx for i2c, wdt, rtc, i2s and so on. Unfortunately, no one didn't know Samsung should prepare some brand name or future at that time...Just I don't want to undergo trial and error again. I'm still saying why Samsung own IPs cannot be used as IP vendors' ones...
I think it won't be possible to use a scheme like "samsung-exynos-g2d-3.0"
Hmm...I think, the name, 'EXYNOS' is not a brand name for IP...
for all IPs. And I would much more like to see a uniform naming convention used, rather than living with a chaotic set of compatible properties, that has a potential to become even more chaotic in the future.
Thanks.
- Kukjin
Kukjin Kim wrote:
Oops, I'm re-sending due to my e-mail client problem :-(
Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 02/01/2013 09:33 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
On 1 February 2013 06:57, Inki Dae inki.dae@samsung.com wrote:
For example, If compatible = "samsung,g2d-3.0" is added to exynos4210.dtsi, it'd be reasonable. But what if that compatible string is added to exynos4.dtsi?. This case isn't considered for exynos4412 SoC with v4.1.
In case of Exynos4 series the base address of G2D ip is different across series. Hence we cannot define it in exynos4.dtsi and need to define the nodes in exynos4xxx.dtsi or specific board files. Thus we can use the version appended compatible string.
However even the second option suggested by Sylwester is OK with me
or
to be even more specific we could go for both SoC as well as version option something like this.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-g2d-3.0" /* for Exynos3110,
Exynos4210 */
compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-g2d-4.1" /* for Exynos4212,
Exynos4412 */
In any case please let me know the final preferred one so that I can update the code send the revised patches.
The version with SoC name embedded in it seems most reliable and correct to me.
compatible = "samsung,exynos3110-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos3110 (S5PC110, S5PV210), Exynos4210 */
If this convention will be used, I hope, the known name, S5PV210 can be used. Why don't you use same SoC name with using in arch/arm/?
compatible = "samsung,exynos4212-fimg-2d" /* for Exynos4212,
Exynos4412
*/
FIMG stands for Fully Interactive Mobile Graphics, and other multimedia IPs follow this naming convention, e.g. FIMG-3D, FIMD (Display Controller), FIMC (Camera), etc.
How about MFC?
This is just my opinion though, and it seems this is a most common scheme from greping the device tree bindings documentation.
IMO, you can grep '$ git grep compatible.*samsung'...or IP name.
As Stephen pointed out, and I also did in some other mail thread in the past, not only an IP revision might be required, but also its integration details, specific to an SoC type are important. This actually happens to be the case with FIMC, where same version of one instance of the IP has more data interfaces routed to other SoC subsystems on one SoC type than on other one.
Well, I don't think so. As you know Samsung makes many EXYNOS SoCs and nowadays the EXYNOS SoCs include many Samsung own IPs such as multimedia. And the IPs are reused on across Samsung SoCs, and I hope on other SoC vendor's SoC. It means Samsung is no longer just SoC vendor and can be called IP vendor. So let's see other IP vendors, ARM, Synopsys and so on. How are their IPs implemented in kernel? Why should Samsung use the SoC name for their IP? And why should we use old SoC name in futre? For example, see the s3c2410-xxx for i2c, wdt, rtc, i2s and so on. Unfortunately, no one didn't know Samsung should prepare some brand name or future at that time...Just I don't want to undergo trial and error again. I'm still saying why Samsung own IPs cannot be used as IP vendors' ones...
I think it won't be possible to use a scheme like "samsung-exynos-g2d-3.0"
Hmm...I think, the name, 'EXYNOS' is not a brand name for IP...
for all IPs. And I would much more like to see a uniform naming convention used, rather than living with a chaotic set of compatible properties, that has a potential to become even more chaotic in the future.
Thanks.
- Kukjin
Hi Sachin,
On 01/25/2013 10:55 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
This patch adds device tree based discovery support to G2D driver
Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamatsachin.kamat@linaro.org
drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c index 7e41529..210e142 100644 --- a/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c +++ b/drivers/media/platform/s5p-g2d/g2d.c @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ #include<linux/slab.h> #include<linux/clk.h> #include<linux/interrupt.h> +#include<linux/of.h>
#include<linux/platform_device.h> #include<media/v4l2-mem2mem.h> @@ -796,7 +797,8 @@ static int g2d_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) }
def_frame.stride = (def_frame.width * def_frame.fmt->depth)>> 3;
- dev->variant = g2d_get_drv_data(pdev);
- if (!pdev->dev.of_node)
dev->variant = g2d_get_drv_data(pdev);
Don' you need something like:
else { of_id = of_match_node(exynos_g2d_match, pdev->dev.of_node); if (!of_id) return -ENODEV; dev->variant = (struct g2d_variant *)of_id->data; } ?
Otherwise dev->variant is left uninitialized...?
return 0;
@@ -844,6 +846,18 @@ static struct g2d_variant g2d_drvdata_v4x = { .hw_rev = TYPE_G2D_4X, /* Revision 4.1 for Exynos4X12 and Exynos5 */ };
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
- {
.compatible = "samsung,g2d-v3",.data =&g2d_drvdata_v3x,- }, {
.compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41",.data =&g2d_drvdata_v4x,
Didn't you consider adding "exynos" to these compatible strings ? I'm afraid g2d may be too generic.
- },
- {},
+}; +MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE(of, exynos_g2d_match);
- static struct platform_device_id g2d_driver_ids[] = { { .name = "s5p-g2d",
@@ -863,6 +877,7 @@ static struct platform_driver g2d_pdrv = { .driver = { .name = G2D_NAME, .owner = THIS_MODULE,
.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(exynos_g2d_match),
of_match_ptr() could be dropped, since exynos_g2d_match[] is always compiled in.
--
Thanks, Sylwester
Hi Sylwester.
Thank you for the review.
On 31 January 2013 03:08, Sylwester Nawrocki sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Sachin,
On 01/25/2013 10:55 AM, Sachin Kamat wrote:
This patch adds device tree based discovery support to G2D driver
Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamatsachin.kamat@linaro.org
Don' you need something like:
else { of_id = of_match_node(exynos_g2d_match, pdev->dev.of_node); if (!of_id) return -ENODEV; dev->variant = (struct g2d_variant *)of_id->data; }?
Otherwise dev->variant is left uninitialized...?
Exactly. The above code is very much required. Not sure how I missed it :(
return 0;@@ -844,6 +846,18 @@ static struct g2d_variant g2d_drvdata_v4x = { .hw_rev = TYPE_G2D_4X, /* Revision 4.1 for Exynos4X12 and Exynos5 */ };
+static const struct of_device_id exynos_g2d_match[] = {
{.compatible = "samsung,g2d-v3",.data =&g2d_drvdata_v3x,}, {.compatible = "samsung,g2d-v41",.data =&g2d_drvdata_v4x,Didn't you consider adding "exynos" to these compatible strings ? I'm afraid g2d may be too generic.
Choosing the right compatible string seems to be the biggest challenge :) I did consider adding "exynos" to the compatible strings, but then MFC used it as "mfc-v5" and I followed the same example. Prepending exynos makes it more specific and should be added (even to MFC) IMO too. We need to arrive at a consensus about the bindings (right now for g2d) as they would be common irrespective of DRM or V4L2 framework. Please let me know your opinion about Inki's suggestion to use version property instead.
},{},.of_match_table = of_match_ptr(exynos_g2d_match),of_match_ptr() could be dropped, since exynos_g2d_match[] is always compiled in.
OK.
Once I get confirmation about the compatible strings, I will resend this patch with other suggested updates.
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
-
Inki Dae -
Inki Dae -
Joonyoung Shim -
Kukjin Kim -
Kyungmin Park -
Sachin Kamat -
Stephen Warren -
Sylwester Nawrocki -
Sylwester Nawrocki -
김승우