From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Warren Subject: Re: Tegra DRM device tree bindings Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 11:49:43 -0600 Message-ID: <4FEB47B7.4080104@wwwdotorg.org> References: <20120626105513.GA9552@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> <4FE9FB22.1090902@wwwdotorg.org> <20120626195108.GB5308@avionic-0098.adnet.avionic-design.de> <4FEA3C2E.3030109@wwwdotorg.org> <20120627050733.GA7177@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120627050733.GA7177-RM9K5IK7kjIQXX3q8xo1gnVAuStQJXxyR5q1nwbD4aMs9pC9oP6+/A@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Thierry Reding Cc: linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, dri-devel-PD4FTy7X32lNgt0PjOBp9y5qC8QIuHrW@public.gmane.org, Jon Mayo List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On 06/26/2012 11:07 PM, Thierry Reding wrote: > On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 04:48:14PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote: ... > I actually like what you proposed above a lot, so if you don't > mind either way I'll go with that proposal. Keeping the connector > nodes as children of the outputs has the advantage of being able to > reference them if we need it at some point. But it is also > redundant in that a single output doesn't usually (never?) driver > more than one connector. Yes, I believe that each output is 1:1 with (the video portion of) a connector. The display controllers obviously aren't 1:1. > The same issue will have to be addressed for the CSI and VI nodes, > but as I currently use neither of those I don't feel qualified to > propose a binding for them. Also for the VI part we're completely > missing documentation. Maybe somebody could push this to be > released as well? I did file a bug noting the request for VI documentation. At this point in time, it's too early to say what, if anything, will come of that. > If I understand correctly, most of the host1x children can also be > chained in a processing pipeline to do postprocessing an video > input for example. I suppose that's generic and doesn't need to be > represented in DT either, right? Yes, I believe that's something internal to the driver.