Re: [PATCH 2/2] dt-bindings: simplefb-sunxi: Add sunxi simplefb extensions

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 01:39:18PM +0000, Grant Likely wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 12:34:46PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

If pre-filled framebuffer nodes are used, the firmware may need extra
properties to find the right node. This documents the properties to use
for this on sunxi platforms.

Signed-off-by: Hans de Goede <redacted>
---
 .../bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt    | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..84ca264
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/video/simple-framebuffer-sunxi.txt

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+Sunxi specific Simple Framebuffer bindings
+
+This binding documents sunxi specific extensions to the simple-framebuffer
+bindings. The sunxi simplefb u-boot code relies on the devicetree containing
+pre-populated simplefb nodes.
+
+These extensions are intended so that u-boot can select the right node based
+on which pipeline and output is being used. As such they are solely intended
+for firmware / bootloader use, and the OS should ignore them.
+
+Required properties:
+- compatible: "sunxi,framebuffer"
+- sunxi,pipeline:
+  <0> for the de_be0 -> lcdc0 -> output pipeline
+  <1> for the de_be1 -> lcdc1 -> output pipeline
+- sunxi,output: One of: "hdmi", "lcd", "vga", and "composite"
+
+Example:
+
+chosen {
+     #address-cells = <1>;
+     #size-cells = <1>;
+     ranges;
+
+     framebuffer@0 {
+             compatible = "sunxi,framebuffer", "simple-framebuffer";
+             sunxi,pipeline = <0>;
+             sunxi,output = "hdmi";
+             clocks = <&pll5 1>, <&ahb_gates 36>, <&ahb_gates 43>,
+                      <&ahb_gates 44>;

If we're going that way, then maybe having to specify clock-names
would be better in order to know which clock is what?

I wouldn't go that way with this binding since the driver has no need
to differentiate between the clocks, and driver authors shouldn't be
encouraged to do so. The purpose of the clocks in this node is only
for itemizing dependencies, not for how to configure the clocks.
Firmware shouldn't care at all about the clocks list, it only needs to
find the correct pre-populated node to fill in and enable.

Well, if we want to play the "DT as an ABI" stuff, you have no
guarantee that in the future, simplefb will still be the driver bound
to "sunxi,framebuffer", and that this driver doesn't need to
differentiate which clocks it needs to protect and which are not
needed. Especially with the combination of the output that you now
hardcode.

As long as the node claims compatibility with "simple-framebuffer",
then it must abide by the simple framebuffer rules. It cannot depend
on the driver having special knowledge about what to do with the
clocks. It is fine for a driver that understands "sunxi,framebuffer"
to enable additional features over and above simple-framebuffer,
providing it doesn't break the vanilla "simple-framebuffer" interface.

The simple-framebuffer binding is clear that it will treat the clocks
as dependencies only.

Of course, if now we don't care at all about this ABI thing, it's
completely fine for me. But I'll archive this email preciously.

I do not in any way mean to say it is okay to break ABI.

Also, my comments above are advice that I would give to U-Boot
authors, not something that should go in the binding. The
simple-framebuffer binding doesn't need to know about the clock names
at all, and if the assumption is that firmware will merely enable a
pre-populated framebuffer node in the tree, then it probably doesn't
need to parse the clocks property either. However, if it actually is
better for the U-Boot implementation to have clocks with names in the
node, then I'm not going to object.

g.