From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 1/7] ARM: dts: Move display-timimg information inside FIMD DT node for exynos5250 Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:56:55 +0900 Message-ID: <105c01ce98b3$14b3d1e0$3e1b75a0$@org> References: <1375183178-8201-1-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> <1375183178-8201-2-git-send-email-vikas.sajjan@linaro.org> <171932162.BeOHtLbZec@amdc1227> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout4.samsung.com ([203.254.224.34]:50470 "EHLO mailout4.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752511Ab3HNF45 (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Aug 2013 01:56:57 -0400 In-reply-to: <171932162.BeOHtLbZec@amdc1227> Content-language: ko Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: 'Tomasz Figa' , 'Vikas Sajjan' Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, jg1.han@samsung.com, inki.dae@samsung.com, ajaynumb@gmail.com, patches@linaro.org, linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, swarren@wwwdotorg.org, mark.rutland@arm.com Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Vikas, > > On Tuesday 30 of July 2013 16:49:32 Vikas Sajjan wrote: > > As the display-timing information is parsed by FIMD driver, it makes > > sense to move the display-timimg DT node inside FIMD DT node for > > exynos5250 > > > > Signed-off-by: Vikas Sajjan > > --- > > arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts | 29 > > ++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 13 > > deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > > b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts index 49f18c2..d176dbb > > 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > > +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250-smdk5250.dts > > @@ -262,19 +262,22 @@ > > pinctrl-0 = <&dp_hpd>; > > }; > > > > - display-timings { > > - native-mode = <&timing0>; > > - timing0: timing@0 { > > - /* 1280x800 */ > > - clock-frequency = <50000>; > > - hactive = <1280>; > > - vactive = <800>; > > - hfront-porch = <4>; > > - hback-porch = <4>; > > - hsync-len = <4>; > > - vback-porch = <4>; > > - vfront-porch = <4>; > > - vsync-len = <4>; > > + fimd@14400000 { > > + status = "okay"; > > + display-timings { > > + native-mode = <&timing0>; > > + timing0: timing@0 { > > + /* 1280x800 */ > > + clock-frequency = <50000>; > > + hactive = <1280>; > > + vactive = <800>; > > + hfront-porch = <4>; > > + hback-porch = <4>; > > + hsync-len = <4>; > > + vback-porch = <4>; > > + vfront-porch = <4>; > > + vsync-len = <4>; > > + }; > > }; > > }; > > Looks good to me, but I would like some other people from the device tree > mailing list to comment on node naming: Do we want to conform to the > recommendation of ePAPR about node naming, which states that node names > should be generic, not platform specific or we are free to ignore it? > The name of node looks good to me and the name had been being used for a long time, and if we change that now, that will cause the bigger confusion. - Kukjin