> > My biggest concern here is that this will not be compatible with the CDF DT > bindings. They're not complete yet, but they will require connections between > entities to be described in DT, in a way very similar (or actually identical) > to the V4L2 DT bindings, documented in > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/media/video-interfaces.txt. Could you have a > look at that ? Please ignore all optional properties beside remote-endpoint, > as they're V4L2 specific. > > I also plan to specify video bus parameters in DT for CDF, but this hasn't > been finalized yet. > While I understand this, I don't see why CDF can't enhance these bindings if it has requirements > than they have without disturbing the panel ones, is DT really that inflexible? It seems that have a simple description for basic panels like Thierry wants to support, that can be enhanced for the other cases in the future should suffice, I really don't like blocking stuff that makes things work on the chance of something that isn't upstream yet, its sets a bad precedent, its also breaks the perfect is the enemy of good rule Dave. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
