Am Mittwoch, den 19.03.2014, 10:11 +0200 schrieb Tomi Valkeinen: > On 19/03/14 10:03, Philipp Zabel wrote: > > >>> Geert's comment also applies to all other connector types. These can be > >>> input connectors, too. > >> > >> We might not need to define all the properties required by input connectors > >> now, but we need to make sure that future extensions will be backward- > >> compatible. I don't see a problem in making the connector DT bindings depend > >> on the direction as long as the direction is specified in the DT node, either > >> explicitly or implicitly. > >> > >> An obvious solution would be to have separate "hdmi-input-connector" and > >> "hdmi-output-connector" compatible strings but I don't like that, as there's > >> no difference in the HDMI connector itself, only in the usage. > > > > I don't think this is necessary, either. I just meant the wording for > > the video port should leave the direction unspecified. I imagine > > somebody somewhere will connect a HDMI connector to a mux so that it can > > be either input or output. > > I don't disagree, but I think it's better to change the wording when > someone has a working setup and can try it. These bindings have been > designed only with video output in mind, and I'd rather have them > constrained to that purpose for now. > > One reason for keeping them output only is that when someone wants to > use these for capture, he needs to change the binding docs, and it'll > gather more attention than just using the bindings in a board's dts. > > That said, we should take care to make the bindings so that nothing > prevents their use for capture (which I think they allow in their > current form). I don't disagree, either. I have no objection against the bindings themselves. Acked-by: Philipp Zabel <p.zabel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> regards Philipp -- 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
