From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomi Valkeinen Subject: Re: [RFR 2/2] drm/panel: Add simple panel support Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:35:49 +0300 Message-ID: <525FCB95.6070401@ti.com> References: <1381947912-11741-1-git-send-email-treding@nvidia.com> <1695169.rzbDl9PeRX@avalon> <20131017085342.GB2502@ulmo.nvidia.com> <12566222.aRYc4MDoOm@avalon> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hHDutNNBDh2ik3OnIBdnooNspJEANeaf1" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <12566222.aRYc4MDoOm@avalon> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Laurent Pinchart , Thierry Reding Cc: 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 --hHDutNNBDh2ik3OnIBdnooNspJEANeaf1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 17/10/13 14:02, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> Okay, so if I understand correctly, translating those bindings to pane= l >> nodes would look somewhat like this: >> >> dc: display-controller { >> ports { >> port@0 { >> remote-endpoint =3D <&panel>; >> }; >> }; >> }; >> >> panel: panel { >> ports { >> port@0 { >> remote-endpoint =3D <&dc>; >> }; >> }; >> }; >> >> The above leaves out any of the other, non-relevant properties. Does >> that sound about right? >=20 > Yes it does. It does? Shouldn't it be something like: panel { ports { port@0 { endpoint@0 { remote =3D <&dc>; }; }; }; }; And simplified: panel { port { endpoint@0 { remote =3D <&dc>; }; }; }; You do need a node for the endpoint, a remote-endpoint property is not enough. > Please note that, when a device has as single port, the ports node can = be=20 > omitted, and the port doesn't need to be numbered. You would then end u= p with >=20 > dc: display-controller { > port { > remote-endpoint =3D <&panel>; > }; > }; > =20 > panel: panel { > port { > remote-endpoint =3D <&dc>; > }; > }; >=20 > 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 =3D <&dc>; common-video-property =3D ; }; 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. Tomi --hHDutNNBDh2ik3OnIBdnooNspJEANeaf1 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSX8uVAAoJEPo9qoy8lh71v8gQAJE+RtSkb7VB7Q08VhBkadIo WFyk6iqs2u/R7PaUfoHET+m2e+aAiaVopyat5Jfh7fYWIxQ8m/6Qwm7+mLLN4tzN +uKlMdXnm6WqmfDMpz6DKM2Ruhi+zaikseMIcNE7tRAqyUx4TWUuCkHfMn/hFz0L 4M4AGJoJC4FkL1/ZykBHyk5uZ2nRXcUAsTf9fHApsLoQpogpmFOn7ZK/kI54IoAe W2UgOyeZBiLlLyl4WX0SzF6qdLIgfUMDE7HJ0dsP5Ldvcy+etfeTijHq6CKH7tqB 7/1WdjjKe4pWfYCEAX1Iqgt9g3RgeX9UJ7kM9319Vk+ahH4dtVuxX8uQLC4RmJRd I0rF13Y7QK55iAZAcmymnUMvyk1jXrCoc+v/IW7MHgRfvTV0dfx7XIP/178zQrWG lutx6S9mzI+tTT2QOxvi3Ybh2WRRH6pkuotNkqaMjPmAyulz+XbBrGZOl888PTc3 xOR9lghdF+s5NyKgomWRRWpXOeGvV0Ld8bV1Q50U1xMulgfzbp40r3BBOxL6DjJj ODF+Z+rPoYB/yy7/Y+p1RqJYqr7rVt+B02GaH0u3KAJgA90tFYYPmj28gvhGlGk7 vU+IAJJemszB+TCoT7pWHrF6lawqcZNIkRSfd34sHkAMf+yeMaojkw88pgTTsI7E ZBBrCEPrnL2/jcwqnkkx =6/2j -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --hHDutNNBDh2ik3OnIBdnooNspJEANeaf1-- -- 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