From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laurent Pinchart Subject: Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:17:17 +0200 Message-ID: <3768216.eiA2v5KI6a@avalon> References: <1381947912-11741-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <4885946.7Zgjf9zNXx@avalon> <525FD12D.3000200@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2515265.AjPQXgySzm"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <525FD12D.3000200-l0cyMroinI0@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Tomi Valkeinen Cc: Thierry Reding , Laurent Pinchart , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Stephen Warren , Ian Campbell , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, Dave Airlie List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org --nextPart2515265.AjPQXgySzm Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Tomi, On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:59:41 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 17/10/13 14:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> I'm not sure if there's a specific need for the port or endpoint nodes > >> in cases like the above. Even if we have common properties describing > >> the endpoint, I guess they could just be in the parent node. > >> > >> panel { > >> remote = <&dc>; > >> common-video-property = ; > >> }; > >> > >> The above would imply one port and one endpoint. Would that work? If we > >> had a function like parse_endpoint(node), we could just point it to > >> either a real endpoint node, or to the device's node. > > > > You reference the display controller here, not a specific display > > controller output. Don't most display controllers have several outputs ? > > Sure. Then the display controller could have more verbose description. > But the panel could still have what I wrote above, except the 'remote' > property would point to a real endpoint node inside the dispc node, not > to the dispc node. > > This would, of course, need some extra code to handle the different > cases, but just from DT point of view, I think all the relevant > information is there. There's many ways to describe the same information in DT. While we could have DT bindings that use different descriptions for different devices and still support all of them in our code, why should we opt for that option that will make the implementation much more complex when we can describe connections in a simple and generic way ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart --nextPart2515265.AjPQXgySzm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSX9VNAAoJEIkPb2GL7hl1F4MIAILdvdwkl9Lbry1tum9SEmPn RpRDoTXa/E4DyHO7ydp9Xi13BpYzL67RvRahubXRJZlKEEElVY3ijtoPwXiKWxMv UwaLEjF30T2xPNF35meULnaEnI82aAF8j3wp10RlbuQPbewRsdDiAvEdrgBqCnvg or16m6K9htA1HrSvExPCFUgt4HB6mOTr7QM2S3E0DsSZ1HPWN/QXfZ8PdV9ULUqw LG6Gz7b5OtU5DxMwDXhnnU5A+2R326l7v23fWcC9iYKh/sL5AVQLUqoPAxIRw7St LH7UxxENRzmd0tmaLLBixpvFnxzxl61kx2gFLy2wBhXHuziGSII5/3A7z2dr/Dk= =8j1f -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2515265.AjPQXgySzm-- -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html