From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tomi.valkeinen@ti.com (Tomi Valkeinen) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 10:04:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 3/9] Doc/DT: Add DT binding documentation for DVI Connector In-Reply-To: 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> <1393604717.3802.61.camel@paszta.hi.pengutronix.de> <531EAF8F.2040400@ti.com> Message-ID: <531EC385.7090001@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 11/03/14 10:00, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 10/03/14 23:45, Rob Herring wrote: >>> I like this proposal over the others. Although, would dual link be a >> >> I don't like inferring the information. With the above, you can't find >> out that the DVI connector has digital and analog support before all the >> drivers are loaded. >> >>> single endpoint or 2 endpoints? How would you differentiate that? >> >> Hmm, well endpoints for a single port are exclusive. So it's either a >> single port and a single endpoint, or two ports and two endpoints. I >> think dual link has to be single port & endpoint, as the TMDS links need >> to be driven together as a single bus. >> >> And dual-link is not really "two links". DVI dual-link means 1 clock >> lane and 6 data lanes, compared to 1 clock lane and 3 data lanes for >> single-link. > > What about having a property for the number of data lanes? That was already suggested by Philipp in this thread. I don't see anything wrong with that, but I don't really see benefit either. "dual-link" is a standard term for 6 data lanes for the DVI connector. And the choices are 3 or 6 data lanes, nothing else. Tomi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 901 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: