From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sylwester Nawrocki Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/26] drm/exynos: Split manager/display/subdrv Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 20:47:44 +0100 Message-ID: <527010E0.5090504@samsung.com> References: <1381951616-12548-1-git-send-email-seanpaul@chromium.org> <2834877.XsF26J0SyF@flatron> <2912271.n3p0qlGDVj@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com (mailout2.w1.samsung.com [210.118.77.12]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8FF6EEC23 for ; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MVG00GRP4BLZJ70@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org; Tue, 29 Oct 2013 19:47:45 +0000 (GMT) In-reply-to: <2912271.n3p0qlGDVj@flatron> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org To: Tomasz Figa , Olof Johansson Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Marchesin?= , Laurent Pinchart , DRI mailing list List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Hi, On 29/10/13 20:23, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> It's a very deeply nested structure, I'm not sure there's a need to >> > make a ports {} subnode really. >> > >> > Also, I don't know if it makes sense to always name it >> > remote-endpoint, or to use a more flexible name depending on what is >> > actually connected, over which bus, etc. I have been thinking about a 'bus_type' as an 'endpoint' node property. Currently the data bus type is derived from selected properties in endpoint node, which is IMO not good enough. I'm not sure if naming 'remote-endpoint' differently would be helpful, as it is now it seems easier to write a generic links parser. Nevertheless I wish we have defined a bit simplified option in this binding right from the beginning. >> > But overall this looks sane-ish. > > I fully agree with you. Personally I would take a bit different design > decisions when designing this bindings, but here I'm just pointing an > already defined binding that should suit the needs described in this > thread, to avoid reinventing the wheel. The 'ports' node is optional. It needs to be used only if, e.g. bridge-a node contains device child nodes and these sub-nodes use 'reg' property. In such case #address-cells, #size-cells properties for 'port' nodes could be conflicting with those for the device child nodes. Thanks, Sylwester