Subject: [PATCH v4 02/10] s5p-fimc: Add device tree support for FIMC devices

From: [email-masked] (Stephen Warren)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 17:32:30 -0700

On 02/08/2013 05:05 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
> On 02/09/2013 12:21 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 02/08/2013 04:16 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
>>> On 02/07/2013 12:40 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> diff --git
>>>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/soc/samsung-fimc.txt
>>>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/soc/samsung-fimc.txt
>>>>
>>>>> +Samsung S5P/EXYNOS SoC Camera Subsystem (FIMC)
>>>>> +----------------------------------------------
>> ...
>>>>> +For every fimc node a numbered alias should be present in the
>>>>> aliases node.
>>>>> +Aliases are of the form fimc<n>, where<n>   is an integer (0...N)
>>>>> specifying
>>>>> +the IP's instance index.
>>>>
>>>> Why? Isn't it up to the DT author whether they care if each fimc
>>>> node is
>>>> assigned a specific identification v.s. whether identification is
>>>> assigned automatically?
>>>
>>> There are at least three different kinds of IPs that come in multiple
>>> instances in an SoC. To activate data links between them each instance
>>> needs to be clearly identified. There are also differences between
>>> instances of same device. Hence it's important these aliases don't have
>>> random values.
>>>
>>> Some more details about the SoC can be found at [1]. The aliases are
>>> also already used in the Exynos5 GScaler bindings [2] in a similar way.
>>
>> Hmmm. I'd expect explicit DT properties to represent the
>> instance-specific "configuration", or even different compatible values.
>> Relying on the alias ID seems rather indirect; what if in e.g.
>> Exynos6/... the mapping from instance/alias ID to feature set changes.
>> With explicit DT properties, that'd just be a .dts change, whereas by
>> requiring alias IDs now, you'd need a driver change to support this.
> 
> In the initial version of this patch series I used cell-index property,
> but then Grant pointed out in some other mail thread it should be
> avoided. Hence I used the node aliases.

To me, using cell-index is semantically equivalent to using the alias ID.

> Different compatible values might not work, when for example there
> are 3 IPs out of 4 of one type and the fourth one of another type.
> It wouldn't even by really different types, just quirks/little
> differences between them, e.g. no data path routed to one of other IPs.

I was thinking of using feature-/quirk-oriented properties. For example,
if there's a port on 3 of the 4 devices to connect to some other IP
block, simply include a boolean property to indicate whether that port
is present. It would be in 3 of the nodes but not the 4th.

> Then to connect e.g. MIPI-CSIS.0 to FIMC.2 at run time an index of the
> MIPI-CSIS needs to be written to the FIMC.2 data input control register.
> Even though MIPI-CSIS.N are same in terms of hardware structure they still
> need to be distinguished as separate instances.

Oh, so you're using the alias ID as the value to write into the FIMC.2
register for that. I'm not 100% familiar with aliases, but they seem
like a more user-oriented naming thing to me, whereas values for hooking
up intra-SoC routing are an unrelated namespace semantically, even if
the values happen to line up right now. Perhaps rather than a Boolean
property I mentioned above, use a custom property to indicate the ID
that the FIMC.2 object knows the MIPI-CSIS.0 object as? While this seems
similar to using cell-index, my *guess* is that Grant's objection to
using cell-index was more based on re-using cell-index for something
other than its intended purpose than pushing you to use an alias ID
rather than a property.

After all, what happens in some later SoC where you have two different
types of module that feed into the common module, such that type A
sources have IDs 0..3 in the common module, and type B sources have IDs
4..7 in the common module - you wouldn't want to require alias ISs 4..7
for the type B DT nodes.