From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Martin Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: vexpress: initial device tree support Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 11:04:33 +0000 Message-ID: <20120110110433.GA2336@linaro.org> References: <1316596786-2539-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Tabi Timur-B04825 Cc: Pawe? Moll , "patches-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org" , "devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org" , Rob Herring , "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.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