From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Warner Losh Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] Doc/DT: Add DT binding documentation for DVI Connector Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 09:28:22 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1393590016-9361-1-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <1393590016-9361-4-git-send-email-tomi.valkeinen@ti.com> <20140228155937.GQ21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5310B567.7040605@ti.com> <20140228162327.GT21483@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140228162327.GT21483-l+eeeJia6m9vn6HldHNs0ANdhmdF6hFW@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Tomi Valkeinen , linux-fbdev-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Philipp Zabel , Laurent Pinchart , Sascha Hauer , Sebastian Hesselbarth , Rob Clark , Inki Dae , Andrzej Hajda , Tomasz Figa , Thierry Reding List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Feb 28, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 06:12:23PM +0200, Tomi Valkeinen wrote: >> On 28/02/14 17:59, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>=20 >>>> +dvi0: connector@0 { >>>> + compatible =3D "dvi-connector"; >>>> + label =3D "dvi"; >>>> + >>>> + i2c-bus =3D <&i2c3>; >>>> + >>>> + dvi_connector_in: endpoint { >>>> + remote-endpoint =3D <&tfp410_out>; >>>> + }; >>>> +}; >>>=20 >>> This looks far too simplistic. There are different classes of DVI >>> connector - there is: >>>=20 >>> DVI A - analogue only >>> DVI D - digital only (single and dual link) >>> DVI I - both (single and dual digital link) >>>=20 >>> DRM at least makes a distinction between these three classes, and t= his >>> disctinction is part of the user API. How would a display system k= now >>> which kind of DVI connector is wired up on the board from this DT >>> description? >>=20 >> Yes, I think that's a valid change. But do we also need to specify >> single/dual link, in addition to the three types? >=20 > I would argue that as it's a difference in physical hardware, then it > should be described in DT, even if we don't use it. The reasoning is > that although we may not use it today, we may need to use it in the > future, and as we're describing what the hardware actually is - and > even in this case what pins may be present or missing on the connecto= r, > it's unlikely to be problematical (the only problem is when someone > omits it...) And the =93we=94 that uses the DT files is larger than just the Linux, = and one of those systems may use it. Warner -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html