On 07/03/14 19:06, Grant Likely wrote: > On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 10:36:36 +0200, Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@xxxxxx> wrote: >> On 26/02/14 16:48, Philipp Zabel wrote: >> >>>> I would like the document to acknowledge the difference from the >>>> phandle+args pattern used elsewhere and a description of when it would >>>> be appropriate to use this instead of a simpler binding. >>> >>> Alright. The main point of this binding is that the devices may have >>> multiple distinct ports that each can be connected to other devices. >> >> The other main point with this binding are multiple endpoints per port. >> So you can have, say, a display controller, with single port, which has >> two endpoints going to two separate LCD panels. >> >> In physical level that would usually mean that the same pins from the >> display controller are connected to two panels. Most likely this would >> mean that only one panel can be used at a time, possibly with different >> settings (say, 16 RGB pins for one panel, 24 RGB pins for the other). > > What device is in control in that scenario? The endpoints in a single port are exclusive, only one can be active at a time. So the control for the active path would be no different than in single panel case (for which people have different opinions). Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
