On 20/03/14 20:49, Laurent Pinchart wrote: >> The CPU is the _controlling_ component - it's the component that has to >> configure the peripherals so they all talk to each other in the right >> way. Therefore, the view of it needs to be CPU centric. >> >> If we were providing a DT description for consumption by some other >> device in the system, then the view should be as seen from that device >> instead. >> >> Think about this. Would you describe a system starting at, say, the >> system keyboard, and branching all the way through just becuase that's >> how you interact with it, or would you describe it from the CPUs point >> of view because that's what has to be in control of the system. > > DT has been designed to represent a control-based view of the system. It does > so pretty well using its tree-based model. However, it doesn't have a native > way to represent a flow-based graph, hence the OF graph solution we're > discussing. The whole point of this proposal is to represent the topology of > the media device, not how each entity is controlled. I agree with Laurent here. I think this is an important point to keep in mind. We already describe the control graph in the DT via the parent-child relationships. There's no point in describing the same thing again with the graph links being discussed. Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
