From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dave.martin@linaro.org (Dave Martin) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:04:33 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: vexpress: initial device tree support In-Reply-To: References: <1316596786-2539-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org> Message-ID: <20120110110433.GA2336@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 11:26:38PM +0000, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote: > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Dave Martin wrote: > > > > ? ? ?* edid -- It should be possible to have a fairly generic binding > > ? ? ? ?for EDID interfaces, but none seems to exist yet. ?Discussion > > ? ? ? ?is needed regarding what form this should take. > > > > ? ? ? ?This might more appropriately be called "ddc" (or some > > ? ? ? ?variation on that), since EDID seems only to describe the > > ? ? ? ?format of the ID data retrievable via this interface; not the > > ? ? ? ?interface itself. > > Has there been any progress on this issue? I'm looking to add EDID > support to a PowerPC device tree. A TI developer is using > "ti,eeprom", but I'm not sure that's a good choice. It turns out that because of the way things are wired up on vexpress, the EDID is not really usable; so I wasn't planning to do anything about it. I don't really know enough about this field to comment on whether it's genuinely useful to have a specific binding for EDID. If it's enough to reference the appropriate I2C bus node from the display device node, then I guess we don't necessarily need to worry about having a separate binding. If it makes no sense to attempt make EDID access fully generic, that would sound like the right approach. Cheers ---Dave