Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] dt-bindings: display: bridge: lvds-codec: Document pixel data sampling edge select

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/19/21 8:49 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
Hi Marek,

Hi,

diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml
index 1faae3e323a4..708de84ac138 100644
--- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml
+++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/display/bridge/lvds-codec.yaml
@@ -79,6 +79,14 @@ properties:
          - port@0
          - port@1
+ pclk-sample:
+    description:
+      Data sampling on rising or falling edge.
+    enum:
+      - 0  # Falling edge
+      - 1  # Rising edge
+    default: 0
+

Shouldn't this be moved to the endpoint, the same way data-mapping is
defined as an endpoint property ?

The strapping is a chip property, not port property, so no.

For this particular chip that's true. I'm still not convinced overall.
For some cases it could be a per-port property

Can you be more specific about "some cases" ?

I'm thinking about bridges that could have multiple parallel inputs.

Can you draft an example how such a binding would look like within the confines of this lvds-codec.yaml ?

I also have to wonder how such a hypothetical device would work, would it serialize two parallel bussed into single LVDS one ?

, and moving it there for
lvds-codec too could allow implementing helpers to parse DT properties,
without much drawback for this particular use case as far as I can see.
It's hard to predict the future with certainty of course, so I won't
insist.

The DT bindings and the OS drivers are separate thing, we really
shouldn't start bending DT bindings so that they would fit nicely with a
specific OS driver model.

DT bindings are not holy beings that live in a mythical heaven way above
the mere mortal drivers, they would be useless without implementations.
It's not about bending them, which I regularly push against during
review, but about structuring them in a way that facilitates
implementations when all other things are equal.

Note that the pclk-sample isn't a property of the input, but of the chip, I don't think it is a good idea to say they are equal and conflate them like so.

As I said, despite wondering whether or not it would be better to move
the property to the endpoint (and that was a genuine open question), I
won't insist in this case.

[...]



[Index of Archives]     [Device Tree Compilter]     [Device Tree Spec]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux PCI Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Yosemite Backpacking]


  Powered by Linux