On 03/07/2014 01:32 PM, Tomi Valkeinen wrote:
> On 07/03/14 14:22, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>
>> I think we should even extend the bindings to fimd:
>> dsi {
>> port@0 {
>> dsi_0: endpoint {
>> remote-endpoint=<&fimd_0>;
>> }
>> }
>> port@1 {
>> dsi_1: endpoint {
>> remote-endpoint=<&lvds_0>;
>> }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> fimd {
>> port@0 {
>> fimd_0: endpoint {
>> remote-endpoint=<&dsi_0>;
>> }
>> }
>> }
> If both fimd and dsi are SoC components, I don't see any strict need for
> that. I think the ports/endpoints are only important when dealing with
> external components, which can be used on any platform. For SoC internal
> components you can have relevant data directly in the drivers, as it is
> fixed (for that SoC).
>
> Of course, if using ports for SoC internal components makes things
> easier for you, I don't see any problems with it either.
There are many possible connections from FIMD, some of them:
FIMD ---> RGB panel, external
FIMD ---> DSI, on SoC
FIMD ---> eDP, on SoC
FIMD ---> ImageEnhacer, on SoC
In the first case port should be created.
In other cases connection could be determined by presence/absence
of specific nodes, so in fact the port can be optional, almost like in
my proposal :)
>
> For OMAP, the SoC's display blocks are all inside one bigger DSS
> "container", so I have not seen need to represent the connections
> between the internal components in the DT data.
How do you deal with situation when IPs in SoC can be connected in
different ways ?
Andrzej
> If the display components were truly independent IPs on the SoC, then
> using ports might make things easier.
>
> Tomi
>
>
--
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
