From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] drm/exynos: move hdmiphy related code to hdmiphy driver Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 01:13:09 +0200 Message-ID: <3343111.VLAUx0FRXN@flatron> References: <1377845974-28373-1-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com> <5248A4EE.9000708@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5248A4EE.9000708@gmail.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Sylwester Nawrocki Cc: Inki Dae , Rahul Sharma , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc , "sw0312.kim" , sunil joshi , dri-devel , "kgene.kim" , Shirish S , Sylwester Nawrocki , Rahul Sharma , Stephen Warren , Mark Rutland , Kumar Gala , Pawel Moll , Rob Herring , Sean Paul List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Monday 30 of September 2013 00:08:46 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > On 09/28/2013 06:10 PM, Inki Dae wrote: > >> Any opinion from Device-Tree folks? > >> > >> IMO, we should have same consensus on Shirish patches before > >> proceeding.> > > Rahul, it seems that DT people have no interest in this issue. So > > let's > > have a consensus about this issue internally. > > > > To Mr. Kyungmin, Sylwester, Kukjin Kim, and Tomasz, > > How about keeping hdmiphy config data in each board dts file? > > Please don't use HTML and quote only relevant part of e-mails. Otherwise > there are good chances your messages end up in people's spam box. > > It often helps to Cc a DT binding maintainer directly. > > Then, you consider moving the HDMI phy configuration to the device tree. > As Sean suggested in this thread: > > ">> +static struct hdmiphy_config hdmiphy_4210_configs[] = { I'd like to only add that patches introducing or modifying a device tree binding need to be acked by at least one DT binding maintainer to be merged. > >> + { > >> + .pixel_clock = 27000000, > >> + .conf = { > >> + 0x01, 0x05, 0x00, 0xD8, 0x10, 0x1C, 0x30, > >> 0x40, > >> + 0x6B, 0x10, 0x02, 0x51, 0xDF, 0xF2, 0x54, > >> 0x87, > >> + 0x84, 0x00, 0x30, 0x38, 0x00, 0x08, 0x10, > >> 0xE0, > >> + 0x22, 0x40, 0xE3, 0x26, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, > >> 0x00, > >> + }, > >> + }, > > [trimmed couple more entries] > > >> +}; > > > > Are you aware of the effort to move these to dt? Since these are > > board-specific values, it seems incorrect to apply them universally. > > Shirish has uploaded a patch to the chromium review site to push these > > into dt (https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/65581). Maybe > > you can work that into your patch set?" > > The configuration data is 64 bytes of the register values IIUC. Would it > be possible to figure out exact meaning of each byte ? This is definitely something that I would go for. Then for board specific data appropriate device tree properties could be defined, not just a binary blob. Best regards, Tomasz