From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: [RFC] media DT bindings Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2012 09:57:24 -0600 Message-ID: <501951E4.7000208@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1853410.hC8HZhzZI6@avalon> <50186A54.3@wwwdotorg.org> <3134777.Df1peamEaY@avalon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3134777.Df1peamEaY@avalon> 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" To: Laurent Pinchart Cc: devicetree-discuss , Sylwester Nawrocki , Magnus Damm , Guennadi Liakhovetski , Linux Media Mailing List List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 07/31/2012 11:59 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Tuesday 31 July 2012 17:29:24 Stephen Warren wrote: >> On 07/31/2012 03:22 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >>> On Tuesday 31 July 2012 14:39:07 Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: >> ... >> >>>> Ok, then, how about >>>> >>>> #address-cells = <1>; >>>> #size-cells = <0>; >>>> ... >>>> ov772x-1 = { >>>> >>>> reg = <1>; /* local pad # */ >>>> client = <&ov772x@0x21-0 0>; /* remote phandle and pad */ >>> >>> The client property looks good, but isn't such a usage of the reg property >>> an abuse ? Maybe the local pad # should be a device-specific property. >>> Many hosts won't need it, and on others it would actually need to >>> reference a subdev, not just a pad. >> >> That's a very odd syntax the the phandle; I assume that "&ov772x@0x21-0" >> is supposed to reference some other DT node. However, other nodes are >> either referenced by: >> >> "&foo" where foo is a label, and the label name is unlikely to include >> the text "@0x21"; the @ symbol probably isn't even legal in label names. >> >> "&{/path/to/node}" which might include the "@0x21" syntax since it might >> be part of the node's name, but your example didn't include {}. >> >> I'm not sure what "-0" is meant to be in that string - a math >> expression, or ...? If it's intended to represent some separate field >> relative to the node the phandle references, it needs to be just another >> cell. > > I'm actually not sure what -0 represents, and I don't think we need the > @0x21-0 at all. I believe &ov772x@0x21-0 is supposed to just be a label. We > don't need an extra cell. Ah, OK. The lexer in dtc has the following definition for label names: LABEL [a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*