From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 18:15:05 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 4/9] Doc/DT: Add DT binding documentation for HDMI Connector In-Reply-To: <20140228160612.GR21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1393590016-9361-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1393590016-9361-5-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <20140228160612.GR21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <5310B609.1010105@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 28/02/14 18:06, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >> +hdmi0: connector at 1 { >> + compatible = "hdmi-connector"; >> + label = "hdmi"; >> + >> + hdmi_connector_in: endpoint { >> + remote-endpoint = <&tpd12s015_out>; >> + }; >> +}; > > It seems rather weird to have DVI connectors having an optional I2C > property, but HDMI (which augments DVI) not having that as at least an > optional property. I have added only the properties that I have used. I did think about the i2c for HDMI also, but thought that I don't use it, and so can't test it, and so I could well create a bad binding. And, as I don't see any issue in adding it later, when someone uses it, I decided to leave it out. > I can quite well see the iMX HDMI support needing an i2c bus here. > > Also, HDMI has two connector standards - type A and type B, much like > the single vs dual link of DVI. Again, DRM exposes this to userspace. True, but isn't that just a form factor? No functional differences? But I agree, we can add the two types here also to the compatible string. Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: