[PATCH RFC 01/10] dt-bindings: gpu: Add PowerVR Series5 SGX GPUs

[Maxime Ripard]

On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 11:33:53AM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> > Am 07.12.2023 um 10:20 schrieb Maxime Ripard <mripard at kernel.org>:
> > 
> > On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 02:50:08PM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 
> >>> Am 05.12.2023 um 14:29 schrieb Maxime Ripard <mripard at kernel.org>:
> >>> 
> >>> Hi,
> >>> 
> >>> On Tue, Dec 05, 2023 at 09:18:58AM +0100, H. Nikolaus Schaller wrote:
> >>>>> Am 05.12.2023 um 07:57 schrieb Maxime Ripard <mripard at kernel.org>:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> On Mon, Dec 04, 2023 at 12:22:36PM -0600, Andrew Davis wrote:
> >>>>>> The Imagination PowerVR Series5 "SGX" GPU is part of several SoCs from
> >>>>>> multiple vendors. Describe how the SGX GPU is integrated in these SoC,
> >>>>>> including register space and interrupts. Clocks, reset, and power domain
> >>>>>> information is SoC specific.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Davis <afd at ti.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>> .../devicetree/bindings/gpu/img,powervr.yaml  | 69 +++++++++++++++++--
> >>>>>> 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> I think it would be best to have a separate file for this, img,sgx.yaml
> >>>>> maybe?
> >>>> 
> >>>> Why?
> >>> 
> >>> Because it's more convenient?
> >> 
> >> Is it?
> > 
> > It's for a separate architecture, with a separate driver, maintained out
> > of tree by a separate community, with a separate set of requirements as
> > evidenced by the other thread. And that's all fine in itself, but
> > there's very little reason to put these two bindings in the same file.
> > 
> > We could also turn this around, why is it important that it's in the
> > same file?
> 
> Same vendor. And enough similarity in architectures, even a logical sequence
> of development of versions (SGX = Version 5, Rogue = Version 6+) behind.
> (SGX and Rogue seem to be just trade names for their architecture development).

Again, none of that matters for *where* the binding is stored.

> AFAIK bindings should describe hardware and not communities or drivers
> or who is currently maintaining it. The latter can change, the first not.

Bindings are supposed to describe hardware indeed. Nothing was ever said
about where those bindings are supposed to be located.

There's hundreds of other YAML bindings describing devices of the same
vendors and different devices from the same generation. If anything
it'll make it easier for you. I'm really not sure why it is
controversial and you're fighting this so hard.

Maxime
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/dri-devel/attachments/20231215/3ce41231/attachment-0001.sig>