On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 9:58 AM Lucas Stach [off-list ref] wrote:

Am Freitag, dem 10.12.2021 um 09:36 -0600 schrieb Rob Herring:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 09, 2021 at 05:36:04AM -0600, Adam Ford wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Dec 9, 2021 at 4:26 AM Ezequiel Garcia
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

Thanks for the patch.

On Wed, Dec 08, 2021 at 04:50:23PM -0600, Adam Ford wrote:

quoted

The G1 and G2 are separate decoder blocks that are enabled by the
vpu-blk-ctrl power-domain controller, which now has a proper driver.
Update the bindings to support separate nodes for the G1 and G2
decoders using the proper driver or the older unified node with
the legacy controls.

To be compatible with older DT the driver, mark certain items as
deprecated and retain the backwards compatible example.

Signed-off-by: Adam Ford <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/media/nxp,imx8mq-vpu.yaml        | 83 ++++++++++++++-----
 1 file changed, 64 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx8mq-vpu.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx8mq-vpu.yaml
index 762be3f96ce9..eeb7bd6281f9 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx8mq-vpu.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/nxp,imx8mq-vpu.yaml

@@ -15,29 +15,39 @@ description:

 properties:
   compatible:
-    const: nxp,imx8mq-vpu
+    oneOf:
+      - const: nxp,imx8mq-vpu
+        deprecated: true
+      - const: nxp,imx8mq-vpu-g1
+      - const: nxp,imx8mq-vpu-g2

   reg:
+    minItems: 1
     maxItems: 3

Is it really useful to keep the deprecated binding nxp,imx8mq-vpu
as something supported by the binding file?

Since I was told that the driver needed to be backwards compatible, i
wanted to make sure that any attempts to build the old device tree
would not fail

I'm not convinced changing the binding at all is correct. 'The driver
structure is changing and I want the binding to align with it' is not a
reason. Are G1 and G2 actually separate, independent blocks where we
could have 1 or both of them? And what about other platforms using this
block?

Yes, they are totally independent video decoder peripherals, handling
different codecs. While I'm not aware that there is a SKU that only
uses one of them, there is a provision in the fuses to disable either
one of the VPU peripherals, so they clearly can work independently.

Smashing them together in one DT node was a mistake IMO. Both VPUs do
not share more than a common power-domain and use the same AMBA domain
bridge to hook into to SoC NoC. On the i.MX8M Mini we have a similar
VPU subsystem, but with nested power domains, so G1, G2 and the new H1
encoder on this chip can even be powered-gated individually.

I agree that the commit message should point out that new DT + old
kernel is not a supported configuration. It isn't optimal, but IMHO a
small price to pay for the ability to handle all the i.MX8M* family VPU
subsystems in the same way with a proper blk-ctrl driver for the common
clock and reset block and the VPUs being independent peripherals.

quoted

Even if the driver handles the old binding, a new dtb with an old kernel
is broken. It's up to the platform to care or not, but you have to
highlight that.

quoted

quoted

In other words, can we drop the deprecated binding from this file,
while keeping the support in the driver for legacy device-trees?

I was trying to represent both the old driver binding and the new one
at the same time.  I thought that's what I was told to do.

I don't care so much if we have a schema for old binding. I'd rather
have warnings if the binding has not been updated. Eventually I want to
be able to test for compatibility by testing DTs with different schema
versions. We've got to get to 0 warnings first though...

I'm in favor of dropping the old binding from the schema. New DTs
should clearly use the new binding and old DTs shouldn't change
anymore, so validation is less useful there.

I wonder if it makes sense to have a more standardized hantro schema
for all the users instead of one dedicated to each platform using a
hantro driver.  The unified schema could have all the various
compatible flags so the driver still knows which features are
enabled/disabled and it's very clear who all the users are for it. I
would think it could cover both the encoder and decoder variants as
well.  We do something similar for 8250 serial ports.

If so, can someone from the media group suggest the best one to
follow?  Ezequiel suggested I look at the sama5d4-vdec to help reduce
some clutter in the driver.  If that binding is good enough, should I
just add the compatible flags to that and potentially rename it.

adam

Regards,
Lucas

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel