On 02/08/2013 04:16 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:

On 02/07/2013 12:40 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:

quoted

quoted

diff --git
a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/soc/samsung-fimc.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/soc/samsung-fimc.txt

quoted

+Samsung S5P/EXYNOS SoC Camera Subsystem (FIMC)
+----------------------------------------------

...

quoted

quoted

+For every fimc node a numbered alias should be present in the
aliases node.
+Aliases are of the form fimc<n>, where<n>  is an integer (0...N)
specifying
+the IP's instance index.

Why? Isn't it up to the DT author whether they care if each fimc node is
assigned a specific identification v.s. whether identification is
assigned automatically?

There are at least three different kinds of IPs that come in multiple
instances in an SoC. To activate data links between them each instance
needs to be clearly identified. There are also differences between
instances of same device. Hence it's important these aliases don't have
random values.

Some more details about the SoC can be found at [1]. The aliases are
also already used in the Exynos5 GScaler bindings [2] in a similar way.

Hmmm. I'd expect explicit DT properties to represent the
instance-specific "configuration", or even different compatible values.
Relying on the alias ID seems rather indirect; what if in e.g.
Exynos6/... the mapping from instance/alias ID to feature set changes.
With explicit DT properties, that'd just be a .dts change, whereas by
requiring alias IDs now, you'd need a driver change to support this.