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 13:51:44 +0200 Message-ID: <4885946.7Zgjf9zNXx@avalon> References: <1381947912-11741-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <12566222.aRYc4MDoOm@avalon> <525FCB95.6070401@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart4432037.AtEoIFuDXi"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <525FCB95.6070401-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 --nextPart4432037.AtEoIFuDXi Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Hi Tomi, On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:35:49 Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > On 17/10/13 14:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >> Okay, so if I understand correctly, translating those bindings to panel > >> > >> nodes would look somewhat like this: > >> dc: display-controller { > >> ports { > >> port@0 { > >> remote-endpoint = <&panel>; > >> }; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> panel: panel { > >> ports { > >> port@0 { > >> remote-endpoint = <&dc>; > >> }; > >> }; > >> }; > >> > >> The above leaves out any of the other, non-relevant properties. Does > >> that sound about right? > > > > Yes it does. > > It does? > > Shouldn't it be something like: > > panel { > ports { > port@0 { > endpoint@0 { > remote = <&dc>; > }; > }; > }; > }; > > And simplified: > > panel { > port { > endpoint@0 { > remote = <&dc>; > }; > }; > }; > > You do need a node for the endpoint, a remote-endpoint property is not > enough. My bad, you'r absolutely right. More sleep is needed. (And while we're at it, the remote-endpoint properties must point to an endpoint, not the device DT node. > > Please note that, when a device has as single port, the ports node can be > > omitted, and the port doesn't need to be numbered. You would then end up > > with> > > dc: display-controller { > > port { > > remote-endpoint = <&panel>; > > }; > > }; > > > > panel: panel { > > port { > > remote-endpoint = <&dc>; > > }; > > }; > > > > I don't think there's a way to simplify it further. > > 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 ? -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart --nextPart4432037.AtEoIFuDXi 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) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJSX89VAAoJEIkPb2GL7hl11jsH/3IAiFudPgna8DfAskSzxHnT KWSvWxqUm7bbVGikNJdTzfRfpEzwBgtON4cqeGKAoTThYaKW7C61POB2KMqZHmjr 68hCcEwKOvJDXIvwUq8VeakxwCKqmCEHCSwoDVXk4ukIn8PfIUI5jRYhTqtZZ8SE FQaG5lXTPNZmc/HbkF9Ro/B0gMFPQio0U5d4amVGo8HLDVfXKappHLAIuZwRYApP pNJt+Nbq8/INoM4bDKsDPPs56THPY/Src2RucKrHOLqc7pSOoE200i/CKVjnOMGe C2/s3IXUMgY23nYWJS32slmZTnldRs7OqUgpoaoicJTojWHNxH5WWpWCBDzzcbQ= =hv2m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart4432037.AtEoIFuDXi-- -- 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