On 23/09/14 12:39, Thierry Reding wrote: > My point is that if you use plain phandles you usually have the > meta-data already. Referring to the above example, bridge0 knows that it > should look for a bridge with phandle &bridge1, whereas bridge1 knows > that the device it is connected to is a panel. The bridge should not care what kind of device is there on the other end. The bridge just has an output, going to another video component. >> Well, I can't say about this particular bridge, but afaik you can >> connect a parallel RGB signal to multiple panels just like that, without >> any muxing. > > Right, but in that case you're not reconfiguring the signal in any way > for each of the panels. You send one single signal to all of them. For Yes, that's one use case, cloning. But I was not talking about that. > all intents and purposes there is only one panel. Well, I guess you > could have separate backlights for the panels. In that case though it > seems better to represent it at least as a virtual mux or bridge, or > perhaps a "mux panel". I was talking about the case where you have two totally different devices, let's say panels, connected to the same output. One could take a 16-bit parallel RGB signal, the other 24-bit. Only one of them can be enabled at a time (from HW perspective both can be enabled at the same time, but then the other one shows garbage). Tomi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
