Hi Rob, gentle ping. Regards, Marco On 19-03-05 19:14, Marco Felsch wrote: > Hi Rob, > > I think you didn't followed the discussion in detail so I will ask you > personal. In short the tc358746 can act as parallel-in -> csi-out or as > csi->in -> parallel-out device. The phyiscal pins are always the same > only the internal timings are different. So we have two ports with two > endpoints. > > Now the question is how we determine the mode. We have two approaches: > 1) > port@0 -> input port > port@1 -> output port > > pro: > + no extra vendor specific binding is needed to determine the mode > > con: > - input/output endpoint can be parallel or mipi-csi2. > > 2) > port@0 -> parallel port > port@1 -> mipi-csi2 port > > pro: > + input/output endpoint are fixed to parallel or mipi > > con: > - vendor specific binding is needed to determine the mode > > Thanks for your comments :) > > Regards, > Marco > > On 19-03-05 09:49, Jacopo Mondi wrote: > > Hi Sakari, Marco, > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 08:17:48PM +0200, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > > Hi Marco, > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 04, 2019 at 05:55:28PM +0100, Marco Felsch wrote: > > > > > > (more device specific) > > > > > > tc358746,default-mode = <CSI-Tx> /* Parallel-in -> CSI-out */ > > > > > > tc358746,default-mode = <CSI-Rx> /* CSI-in -> Parallel-out */ > > > > > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > > > > > (more generic) > > > > > > tc358746,default-dir = <PARALLEL_TO_CSI2> > > > > > > tc358746,default-dir = <CSI2_TO_PARALLEL> > > > > > > > > > > The prefix for Toshiba is "toshiba". What would you think of > > > > > "toshiba,csi2-direction" with values of either "rx" or "tx"? Or > > > > > "toshiba,csi2-mode" with either "master" or "slave", which would be a > > > > > little bit more generic, but could be slightly more probable to get wrong > > > > > as well. > > > > > > > > You're right mixed the prefix with the device.. If we need to introduce > > > > a property I would prefer the "toshiba,csi2-direction" one. I said if > > > > because as Jacopo mentioned we can avoid the property by define port@0 > > > > as input and port@1 as output. I tink that's the best solution, since we > > > > can avoid device specific bindings and it's common to use the last port > > > > as output (e.g. video-mux). > > > > > > The ports represent hardware and I think I would avoid reordering them. I > > > wonder what would the DT folks prefer. > > > > > > > I might have missed why you mention re-ordering? :) > > > > > The device specific property is to the point at least: it describes an > > > orthogonal part of the device configuration. That's why I'd pick that if I > > > were to choose. But I'll let Rob to comment on this. > > > > That's true indeed. Let's wait for inputs from DT people, I'm fine > > with both approaches. > > > > Thanks > > j > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Sakari Ailus > > > sakari.ailus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | > > -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
