Hi Tomi,
On Thursday 17 October 2013 14:59:41 Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 17/10/13 14:51, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> >> 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 = <&dc>;
> >> common-video-property = <asd>;
> >> };
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > You reference the display controller here, not a specific display
> > controller output. Don't most display controllers have several outputs ?
>
> Sure. Then the display controller could have more verbose description.
> But the panel could still have what I wrote above, except the 'remote'
> property would point to a real endpoint node inside the dispc node, not
> to the dispc node.
>
> This would, of course, need some extra code to handle the different
> cases, but just from DT point of view, I think all the relevant
> information is there.
There's many ways to describe the same information in DT. While we could have
DT bindings that use different descriptions for different devices and still
support all of them in our code, why should we opt for that option that will
make the implementation much more complex when we can describe connections in
a simple and generic way ?
--
Regards,
Laurent Pinchart
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
