devicetree.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Srinivas KANDAGATLA <srinivas.kandagatla@st.com>
To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <m.chehab@samsung.com>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	"linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
	"rob.herring@calxeda.com" <rob.herring@calxeda.com>,
	Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@arm.com>,
	Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk>,
	Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>,
	"devicetree@vger.kernel.org" <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] media: rc: OF: Add Generic bindings for remote-control
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:22:06 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <524C482E.3050003@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131001114949.5a26dd70.m.chehab@samsung.com>

On 01/10/13 15:49, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
>>> > > 
>>> > > Btw, we're even thinking on mapping HDMI-CEC remote controller RX/TX via
>>> > > the RC subsystem. So, another L1 protocol would be "hdmi-cec".
>>> > > 
>> > Ok.
>>> > > Yet, it seems unlikely that the very same remote controller IP would use
>>> > > a different protocol for RX and TX, while sharing the same registers.
>> > 
>> > ST IRB block has one IR processor which has both TX and RX support and
>> > one UHF Processor which has RX support only. However the register map
>> > for all these support is in single IRB IP block.
>> > 
>> > So the driver can configure the IP as TX in "infrared" and RX in "uhf".
>> > This is supported in ST IRB IP.
>> > 
>> > This case can not be represented in a single device tree node with
>> > l1-protocol and direction properties.
>> > 
>> > IMHO, having tx-mode and rx-mode or tx-protocol and rx-protocol
>> > properties will give more flexibility.
>> > 
>> > What do you think?
> Yeah, if they're using the same registers, then your proposal works
> better.
> 
> I would prefer to not call it as just protocol, as IR has an
> upper layer protocol that defines how the bits are encoded, e. g.
> RC5, RC6, NEC, SONY, ..., with is what we generally call as protocol
> on rc-core. 
> 
> A proper naming for it is hard to find. Well, for IR/UHF, it is actually

Yes I agree.

> specifying the medium, but for Bluetooth, HDMI-CEC, it defines a
> protocol stack to be used, with covers not only the physical layer of
> the OSI model.
> 
> Perhaps the better would be to call it as: tx-proto-stack/rx-proto-stack.
> 
How are we going to address use case highlighted by Mark R, like N
Connections on a single IP block?

This use-case can not be addressed with tx-mode and rx-mode or
tx-proto-stack/rx-proto-stack properties.

So the idea of generic properties for tx and rx sounds incorrect.

IMHO, Best thing would be to drop the idea of using tx-mode and rx-mode
as generic properties and use "st,tx-mode" and "st,rx-mode" instead for
st-rc driver.

What do you think?

Thanks,
srini



  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-02 16:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-09-27  9:33 [PATCH RFC] media: rc: OF: Add Generic bindings for remote-control Srinivas KANDAGATLA
     [not found] ` <1380274391-26577-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla-qxv4g6HH51o@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-27 11:34   ` Mark Rutland
2013-09-27 13:26     ` Srinivas KANDAGATLA
2013-09-27 13:57       ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2013-09-30  8:27         ` Srinivas KANDAGATLA
2013-10-01 14:49           ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2013-10-02 16:22             ` Srinivas KANDAGATLA [this message]
2013-10-02 17:33               ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
2013-10-02 17:44                 ` Stephen Warren
2013-09-27 13:47     ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
     [not found]       ` <20130927104719.6637368f-Sze3O3UU22JBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org>
2013-09-30 16:51         ` Mark Rutland
2013-10-09 12:17           ` srinivas kandagatla
2013-10-18 11:37             ` Mark Rutland
2013-10-18 12:23               ` srinivas kandagatla

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=524C482E.3050003@st.com \
    --to=srinivas.kandagatla@st.com \
    --cc=Pawel.Moll@arm.com \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m.chehab@samsung.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
    --cc=rob@landley.net \
    --cc=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).