Hi Rob, On 10/03/14 18:05, Rob Herring wrote: >> Russell's point was that these connector bindings are very generic, i.e. >> they are not for any particular chip from a particular vendor, but for >> any connector for DVI, HDMI or analog-tv. And he's worried that maybe we >> shouldn't define such generic bindings without consulting the whole >> device-tree community (i.e including non-linux users). > > So re-work it to be generic and send it out. DT maintainers would > rarely disagree that something shouldn't be made generic. They (in this series) are already designed to be generic. I should perhaps re-word the question: we are concerned whether these bindings are good for all the users, not just us, and whether there already exists something that overlaps. Afaik, there's nothing overlapping. And I don't see why they wouldn't be good for all users (with the few minor modifications that have been discussed in this thread). But, if I gathered right, Russell would like some kind of ack from someone who might know better than us. So is it enough to have posted these, and gotten acks from the people involved, or should we get acks from DT maintainers also? Is there a way to get the attention of, say, BSD people, or should we just presume they'll follow the list? >> So the question is, is there such a community and a forum to bring up >> this kind of things? If yes, should we bring this up there? If yes, what >> kind of things in general should be brought into the attention of >> non-linux users? > > devicetree list is just that. It is not just for Linux. There is the > newly created devicetree-spec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx which is for more > core/common binding discussion. Ok. >> What I wonder here is that while a thing like DVI connector is, of >> course, more generic than, say, "ti,tfp410" encoder chip, but isn't the >> case still the same: we're defining global bindings for hardware that >> should work for everyone, not only Linux users? > > Defining the connectors in DT is a useful thing although mainly when > you have multiple connectors of the same type. Labels for composite, > SVideo, VGA, DVI, HDMI seem less useful to me. Describing position or > printed label (like front vs. rear connections) seem more useful to > me. My point above was that it feels mentally easier to define bindings for one particular IP block or chip, than defining bindings for a more generic thing like "HDMI connector". But, in the end, I believe they both should go through similar review, and there's no such difference. As for the labels, they can be anything that makes sense for that particular board. It can be "HDMI Front", if such makes sense, or "HDMI-2" if the connector has such physical printed label. Or, say, "Main LCD", "Secondary LCD". It's a free form text that is given to the user. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
