From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:12:23 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/9] Doc/DT: Add DT binding documentation for DVI Connector In-Reply-To: <20140228155937.GQ21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1393590016-9361-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1393590016-9361-4-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <20140228155937.GQ21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <5310B567.7040605@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 28/02/14 17:59, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> +dvi0: connector at 0 { >> + compatible = "dvi-connector"; >> + label = "dvi"; >> + >> + i2c-bus = <&i2c3>; >> + >> + dvi_connector_in: endpoint { >> + remote-endpoint = <&tfp410_out>; >> + }; >> +}; > > This looks far too simplistic. There are different classes of DVI > connector - there is: > > DVI A - analogue only > DVI D - digital only (single and dual link) > DVI I - both (single and dual digital link) > > DRM at least makes a distinction between these three classes, and this > disctinction is part of the user API. How would a display system know > which kind of DVI connector is wired up on the board from this DT > description? Yes, I think that's a valid change. But do we also need to specify single/dual link, in addition to the three types? I guess the compatible string is the easiest way for differentation, at least for the three main types, i.e. "dvi-d-connector" etc. "dvi-d-1l-connector" and "dvi-d-2l-connector" for the single/dual link? That looks a bit funny. Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: