On 28/02/14 17:59, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> +dvi0: connector@0 {
>> + compatible = "dvi-connector";
>> + label = "dvi";
>> +
>> + i2c-bus = <&i2c3>;
>> +
>> + dvi_connector_in: endpoint {
>> + remote-endpoint = <&tfp410_out>;
>> + };
>> +};
>
> This looks far too simplistic. There are different classes of DVI
> connector - there is:
>
> DVI A - analogue only
> DVI D - digital only (single and dual link)
> DVI I - both (single and dual digital link)
>
> DRM at least makes a distinction between these three classes, and this
> disctinction is part of the user API. How would a display system know
> which kind of DVI connector is wired up on the board from this DT
> description?
Yes, I think that's a valid change. But do we also need to specify
single/dual link, in addition to the three types?
I guess the compatible string is the easiest way for differentation, at
least for the three main types, i.e. "dvi-d-connector" etc.
"dvi-d-1l-connector" and "dvi-d-2l-connector" for the single/dual link?
That looks a bit funny.
Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
