Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] dt-bindings: simplefb-sunxi: Add sunxi simplefb extensions

Hi,

On 11/25/2014 02:38 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:

On 25/11/14 15:21, Hans de Goede wrote:

quoted

quoted

Shouldn't the compatible then be "allwinner,sunxi-simple-framebuffer",
to differentiate from some other SoC Allwinner has or might create in
the future? That is, presuming you're confident enough that a single
compatible string covers all the current and forthcoming sunxi SoCs.

This was discussed in an earlier thread, we (Ian Campbell, Grant and me)

Okay. Sorry for not having time at the moment to follow the discussions
properly. =)

quoted

decided to settle on allwinner,simple-framebuffer to make it clear that
these are allwinner extensions to the standard simple-framebuffer bindings,
and that the node otherwise is simple-framebuffer compatible.

We were afraid that e.g. sun4i-simple-framebuffer would signal that it
is not a normal simple-framebuffer node, so we decided to go with just
the allwinner, prefix to indicate that it uses allwinner specific
extensions.

Wouldn't

compatible = "allwinner,sun4i-simple-framebuffer", "simple-framebuffer";

tell that it's a simple-framebuffer, with allwinner's sun4i extensions?

I guess you can have just "allwinner,simple-framebuffer", and then if a
new Allwinner SoC has a totally different display controller, the
documentation would specify that this property is for that SoC, and this
another property is for that another SoC. But isn't the compatible
string what's supposed to use in cases like this?

The only soc specific thing in the binding is the pipeline property string
values, and we can always add new values to that, the rest is all generic,
as simplefb is generic.

As said Ian Campbell, Grant and me have decided on using this, and currently
patches are already queued up for both the dts files and u-boot to use this,
so unless there are really strong reasons to change it at this point I would
prefer to keep this as is.

Regards,

Hans