Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] dt-bindings: gpu: add bindings for the ARM Mali Midgard GPU

[Rob Herring]

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Guillaume Tucker
<guillaume.tucker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On 28/04/17 20:27, Rob Herring wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 02:16:16PM +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>
>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt
>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt
>>> new file mode 100644
>>> index 000000000000..547ddeceb498
>>> --- /dev/null
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/gpu/arm,mali-midgard.txt
>>> @@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
>>> +ARM Mali Midgard GPU
>>> +====================
>>> +
>>> +Required properties:
>>> +
>>> +- compatible :
>>> +  * Must be one of the following:
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t60x"
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t62x"
>>
>>
>> Don't use wildcards.
>
>
> Sure, old habits die hard...  I'll fix it in patch v5.
>
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t720"
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t760"
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t820"
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t830"
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t860"
>>> +    + "arm,mali-t880"
>>> +  * And, optionally, one of the vendor specific compatible:
>>
>>
>> IMO, these should not be optional.
>
>
> Well, vendor compatible strings are clearly optional for the
> Utgard GPU series for which the bindings docs were recently
> merged.  It seems that whether these should be optional or not,
> the documentation should be consistent between at least all
> similar types of devices like Midgard and Utgard GPUs.  They have
> different architectures but from a device tree point of view,
> they both have the same kind of SoC-specific integration (clocks,
> irqs, regulators...).

Clocks should not vary by SoC. There is often variation because clocks
get driven by same source or are not s/w controlled, but really there
should not be that variation. I noticed Utgard has 2 clocks. So is
Midgard really just 1 clock? The DT should have all the clocks listed
in the TRMs.

> So was this was overlooked in the Utgard case and should it
> ideally be fixed there as well as non-optional?  Or, is it OK to
> keep these optional on a second thought?

Probably should be required in the Utgard case as well.

Rob