Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] dt-bindings: display: bridge: Document THC63LVD1024 LVDS decoder

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Rob,

On Thursday, 5 April 2018 19:33:33 EEST Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 8:36 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 27 March 2018 14:03:25 EEST Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> >> On 03/27/2018 01:10 PM, jacopo mondi wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:37:31PM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> >>>> On 03/27/2018 11:57 AM, jacopo mondi wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 11:30:29AM +0300, Vladimir Zapolskiy wrote:
> >>>>>> On 03/27/2018 11:27 AM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/27/2018 10:33 AM, jacopo mondi wrote:
> >>>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Document Thine THC63LVD1024 LVDS decoder device tree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> bindings.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jacopo Mondi <jacopo+renesas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Andrzej Hajda <a.hajda@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Niklas Söderlund
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>   .../bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63lvd1024.txt | 66 +++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 66 insertions(+)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>   create mode 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc63l
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> vd1024.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3lvd1024.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3lvd1024.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> new file mode 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> index 0000000..8225c6a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> --- /dev/null
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +++
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/thine,thc6
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 3lvd1024.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +Thine Electronics THC63LVD1024 LVDS decoder
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +-------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +The THC63LVD1024 is a dual link LVDS receiver designed to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> convert LVDS streams
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +to parallel data outputs. The chip supports single/dual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> input/output modes,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +handling up to two two input LVDS stream and up to two
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> digital CMOS/TTL outputs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +Single or dual operation modes, output data mapping and DDR
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> output modes are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +configured through input signals and the chip does not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> expose any control bus.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +Required properties:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- compatible: Shall be "thine,thc63lvd1024"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +Optional properties:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- vcc-supply: Power supply for TTL output and digital
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> circuitry
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- cvcc-supply: Power supply for TTL CLOCKOUT signal
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- lvcc-supply: Power supply for LVDS inputs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- pvcc-supply: Power supply for PLL circuitry
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> As explained in a comment to one of the previous versions of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> this series, I'm tempted to make vcc-supply mandatory and drop
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the three other power supplies for now, as I believe there's
> >>>>>>>>>>>> very little chance they will be connected to separately
> >>>>>>>>>>>> controllable regulators (all supplies use the same voltage). In
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the very unlikely event that this occurs in design we need to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> support in the future, the cvcc, lvcc and pvcc supplies can be
> >>>>>>>>>>>> added later as optional without breaking backward
> >>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I'm okay with that.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Apart from that,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Laurent Pinchart
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <laurent.pinchart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- pdwn-gpios: Power down GPIO signal. Active low
> >>>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> powerdown-gpios is the semi-standard name.
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> right, I've also noticed it. If possible please avoid
> >>>>>>>>>> shortenings in property names.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> It is not shortening, it just follow pin name from decoder's
> >>>>>>>>> datasheet.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +- oe-gpios: Output enable GPIO signal. Active high
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>>> And this one is also a not ever met property name, please
> >>>>>>>>>> consider to rename it to 'enable-gpios', for instance display
> >>>>>>>>>> panels define it.
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> Again, it follows datasheet naming scheme. Has something changed
> >>>>>>>>> in DT conventions?
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>> Seconded. My understanding is that the property name should
> >>>>>>>> reflect what reported in the the chip manual. For THC63LVD1024 the
> >>>>>>>> enable and power down pins are named 'OE' and 'PDWN' respectively.
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> But don't we need the vendor prefix in the prop names then, like
> >>>>>>> "renesas,oe-gpios" then?
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Seconded, with a correction to "thine,oe-gpios".
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> mmm, okay then...
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> A grep for that semi-standard properties names in Documentation/
> >>>>> returns only usage examples and no actual definitions, so I assume
> >>>>> this is why they are semi-standard.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Here we have to be specific about a particular property, let it be
> >>>> 'oe-gpios' vs. 'enable-gpios' and let's collect some statistics:
> >>>> 
> >>>> % grep -Hr oe-gpios Documentation/devicetree/bindings/* | wc -l
> >>>> 0
> >>>> 
> >>>> $ grep -Hr enable-gpios Documentation/devicetree/bindings/* | wc -l
> >>>> 86
> >>>> 
> >>>> While 'thine,oe-gpios' would be correct, I see no reason to introduce
> >>>> a vendor specific property to define a pin with a common and well
> >>>> understood purpose.
> >>>> 
> >>>> If you go forward with the vendor specific prefix, apparently you can
> >>>> set the name to 'thine,oe-gpio' (single) or even to 'thine,oe', or does
> >>>> the datasheet names the pin as "OE GPIO" or "OE connected to a GPIO"? I
> >>>> guess no.
> >>> 
> >>> Let me clarify I don't want to push for a vendor specific name or
> >>> similar, I'm fine with using 'semi-standard' names, I'm just confused
> >>> by the 'semi-standard' definition. I guess from your examples, the
> >>> usage count makes a difference here.
> >> 
> >> yes, in gneneral you can read "semi-standard" as "widely used", thus
> >> collecting statistics is a good enough method to make a reasoning.
> >> 
> >> Hopefully the next evolutionary step of "widely used" is "described in
> >> standard".
> >> 
> >>>> Standards do not define '-gpios' suffix, but partially the description
> >>>> is found in Documentation/bindings/gpio/gpio.txt, still it is not a
> >>>> section in any standard as far as I know.
> >>>> 
> >>>>> Seems like there is some tribal knowledge involved in defining what
> >>>>> is semi-standard and what's not, or are those properties documented
> >>>>> somewhere?
> >>>> 
> >>>> The point is that there is no formal standard which describes every
> >>>> IP, every IC and every single their property, some device node names
> >>>> and property names are recommended in ePAPR and Devicetree
> >>>> Specification though.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Think of a confusion if 'rst-gpios' (have you seen any ICs with an RST
> >>>> pin?) and 'reset-gpios' are different. Same applies to 'pdwn-gpios'
> >>>> vs. 'powerdown-gpios'.
> >>> 
> >>> I see all your points and I agree with most of them. Anyway, if the
> >>> chip manual describes a pin as 'RST' I would not find it confusing to
> >>> have a 'rst-gpio' defined in bindings :)
> >>> 
> >>> Let me be a bit pesky here: what if a chip defines a reset GPIO, which
> >>> is definitely a reset, but names it, say "XYZ" ? Would you prefer to
> >>> see it defined as "reset-gpios" for consistency with other bindings,
> >>> or "xyz-gpios" for consistency with documentation?
> >> 
> >> If a pin is definitely an IC reset as you said, then my preference is to
> >> see it described under 'reset-gpios' property name, plus a comment in
> >> the IC device tree documentation document about it. I can provide two
> >> reasons to advocate my position:
> >> 
> >> 1) developers spend significantly more time reading and editing the
> >> actual
> >> 
> >>    DTSI/DTS board files rather than reading and editing documentation,
> >>    it makes sense to use common property names to save time and reduce
> >>    amount of "what does 'oe' stand for?" type of questions; I suppose
> >>    that the recommendation to avoid not "widely used" abbreviations in
> >>    device node and property names arises from the same reasoning,
> >> 
> >> 2) "widely used" and "standard" properties are excellent candidates for
> >> 
> >>    developing (or re-using) generalization wrappers, it happened so many
> >>    times in the past, and this process shall be supported in my opinion;
> >>    due to compatibility restrictions it might be problematic to change
> >>    property names, and every new exception to "widely used" properties
> >>    makes problematic to develop and maintain these kinds of wrappers, and
> >>    of course it postpones a desired "described in standard" recognition.
> >> 
> >> If my point of view is accepted, I do admit that a developer who
> >> translates a board schematics to board DTS file may experience a minor
> >> discomfort, which is mitigated if relevant pin names are found in device
> >> tree binding documentation in comments to properties, still the overall
> >> gain is noticeably higher in my personal opinion.
> > 
> > I have to disagree with this. When using a property name that doesn't
> > correspond to the hardware documentation, developers will need to refer to
> > the DT bindings documentation to confirm the property name. "Widely used"
> > property names will not save time, they will use more time. This is of
> > course marginal and I don't think it would have any noticeable impact,
> > but I don't think your argument holds.
> 
> We can have it both ways. The name should follow the documented
> name/function. For example, we have enable-gpios which is simply the
> invert of powerdown-gpios (for software's purposes). Pick the one
> closest to the documentation. We're not trying to make bindings use
> "enable" if a signal is called "powerdown".
> 
> What we don't want is gratuitous variation in the names based on the
> whims of hw designers:
> 
> resetb-gpios
> resetn-gpios
> rst-gpios
> rstn-gpios
> nRESET-gpios
> 
> ...you get the idea (and I left out vendor prefixes).

Do we have a list of standardized names that should be used preferentially ? 
If not, should we create one ?

> > I'm all for standardizing properties across DT bindings for multiple
> > components, but doing so in a semi-random fashion will in my opinion not
> > result in any gain. We can decide that power-down or output-enable GPIOS
> > should have common property names (and I'm not even sure that would be
> > useful, but we can certainly discuss it), but in that case someone should
> > make a proposal and get the names standardized. Unless we do so, no
> > matter what property name gets picked for a particular binding, it won't
> > become universally used by magic.
> 
> For "output enable", I suspect that is a common signal/function and
> should have a standardized name. Generally, the way this works is we
> get several variations and then we try to standardize things. I think
> we can all agree standardizing first is better. If you want to put it
> in a common place, please do. Maybe people will read that. Regardless,
> the only way to enforce following standard names is with review.
> 
> Debating "oe" vs. "output-enable" is bikeshedding IMO. Anyone familiar
> with h/w design should recognize OE.
> 
> The reason to try and standardize names is so we can have common
> drivers or library functions. In particular, for things like GPIOs
> that need to be configured first for devices on otherwise discoverable
> buses, this is very useful.

I'm not sure we will ever implement that for the OE or power-down GPIOs, but 
I'm also not sure we will never do it, so I suppose it makes sense, just in 
case.

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart