Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support

[Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1731 bytes --]

On 17/10/13 14:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote:

>> Okay, so if I understand correctly, translating those bindings to panel
>> nodes would look somewhat like this:
>>
>> 	dc: display-controller {
>> 		ports {
>> 			port@0 {
>> 				remote-endpoint = <&panel>;
>> 			};
>> 		};
>> 	};
>>
>> 	panel: panel {
>> 		ports {
>> 			port@0 {
>> 				remote-endpoint = <&dc>;
>> 			};
>> 		};
>> 	};
>>
>> The above leaves out any of the other, non-relevant properties. Does
>> that sound about right?
> 
> Yes it does.

It does?

Shouldn't it be something like:

panel {
	ports {
		port@0 {
			endpoint@0 {
				remote = <&dc>;
			};
		};
	};
};

And simplified:

panel {
	port {
		endpoint@0 {
			remote = <&dc>;
		};
	};
};

You do need a node for the endpoint, a remote-endpoint property is not
enough.

> Please note that, when a device has as single port, the ports node can be 
> omitted, and the port doesn't need to be numbered. You would then end up with
> 
>  	dc: display-controller {
> 		port {
> 			remote-endpoint = <&panel>;
>  		};
>  	};
>  
>  	panel: panel {
>  		port {
>  			remote-endpoint = <&dc>;
>  		};
>  	};
> 
> I don't think there's a way to simplify it further.

I'm not sure if there's a specific need for the port or endpoint nodes
in cases like the above. Even if we have common properties describing
the endpoint, I guess they could just be in the parent node.

panel {
	remote = <&dc>;
	common-video-property = <asd>;
};

The above would imply one port and one endpoint. Would that work? If we
had a function like parse_endpoint(node), we could just point it to
either a real endpoint node, or to the device's node.

 Tomi



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]