[PATCH v2 1/3] dt-bindings: Add YAML bindings for Host1x and NVDEC

[Mikko Perttunen]

On 10.8.2021 18.43, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 03:34:48PM +0300, Mikko Perttunen wrote:
>> Convert the original Host1x bindings to YAML and add new bindings for
>> NVDEC, now in a more appropriate location. The old text bindings
>> for Host1x and engines are still kept at display/tegra/ since they
>> encompass a lot more engines that haven't been converted over yet.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen at nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> * Fix issues pointed out in v1
>> * Add T194 nvidia,instance property
>> ---
>>   .../gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra20-host1x.yaml     | 131 ++++++++++++++++++
>>   .../gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml     | 109 +++++++++++++++
>>   MAINTAINERS                                   |   1 +
>>   3 files changed, 241 insertions(+)
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra20-host1x.yaml
>>   create mode 100644 Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml
> 
> Can we split off the NVDEC bindings addition into a separate patch? I've
> been working on converting the existing host1x bindings in full to json-
> schema and this partial conversion would conflict with that effort.
> 
> I assume that NVDEC itself validates properly even if host1x hasn't been
> converted yet?

Sure. I thought I had some problems with this before but can't see any now.

> 
>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 000000000000..fc535bb7aee0
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml
>> @@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
>> +# SPDX-License-Identifier: (GPL-2.0 OR BSD-2-Clause)
>> +%YAML 1.2
>> +---
>> +$id: "http://devicetree.org/schemas/gpu/host1x/nvidia,tegra210-nvdec.yaml#"
>> +$schema: "http://devicetree.org/meta-schemas/core.yaml#"
>> +
>> +title: Device tree binding for NVIDIA Tegra NVDEC
>> +
>> +description: |
>> +  NVDEC is the hardware video decoder present on NVIDIA Tegra210
>> +  and newer chips. It is located on the Host1x bus and typically
>> +  programmed through Host1x channels.
>> +
>> +maintainers:
>> +  - Thierry Reding <treding at gmail.com>
>> +  - Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen at nvidia.com>
>> +
>> +properties:
>> +  $nodename:
>> +    pattern: "^nvdec@[0-9a-f]*$"
>> +
>> +  compatible:
>> +    enum:
>> +      - nvidia,tegra210-nvdec
>> +      - nvidia,tegra186-nvdec
>> +      - nvidia,tegra194-nvdec
>> +
>> +  reg:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  clocks:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  clock-names:
>> +    items:
>> +      - const: nvdec
>> +
>> +  resets:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  reset-names:
>> +    items:
>> +      - const: nvdec
>> +
>> +  power-domains:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  iommus:
>> +    maxItems: 1
>> +
>> +  interconnects:
>> +    items:
>> +      - description: DMA read memory client
>> +      - description: DMA read 2 memory client
>> +      - description: DMA write memory client
>> +
>> +  interconnect-names:
>> +    items:
>> +      - const: dma-mem
>> +      - const: read2
> 
> The convention that we've used so far has been to start numbering these
> at 0 and use a dash, so this would be "read-1".

Will fix.

> 
>> +      - const: write
>> +
>> +required:
>> +  - compatible
>> +  - reg
>> +  - clocks
>> +  - clock-names
>> +  - resets
>> +  - reset-names
>> +  - power-domains
>> +
>> +if:
>> +  properties:
>> +    compatible:
>> +      contains:
>> +        const: nvidia,tegra194-host1x
>> +then:
>> +  properties:
>> +    nvidia,instance:
>> +      items:
>> +        - description: 0 for NVDEC0, or 1 for NVDEC1
> 
> I know we had discussed this before, but looking at the driver patch, I
> don't actually see this being used now, so I wonder if we still need it.
> 
>> +additionalProperties: true
> 
> Maybe this should have a comment noting that this should really be
> unevaluatedProperties: false, but we can't use that because the tooling
> doesn't support it yet?

I can add such a comment if desired. Honestly, I don't really know what 
'unevaluatedProperties' means or does -- the explanation in 
example-schema.yaml doesn't seem like it's relevant here and I cannot 
find any other documentation.

Thanks,
Mikko

> 
> Rob, what's the current best practice for that? I see that there are
> quite a few bindings that use unevaluatedProperties, so I wonder if we
> just ignore errors from that for now? Or do we have some development
> branch of the tooling somewhere that supports this now? I vaguely recall
> reading about work in progress patches for this, but I can't find the
> link now to see if there's been an update since I last looked.
> 
> Thierry
>